P.RAJENDRAN NAIR Vs. K.PAVITHRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Senior Superintendent in the Directorate of Homoeopathy at Thiruvananthapuram, challenges Ext.P3 order of transfer passed by the Director of Homoeopathy on 18.2008. The petitioner was promoted as Senior Superintendent and posted at District Medical Office (Homoeo) Kannur as per order dated 8.3.2000 issued by the Director of Homoeopathy. He was later transferred to Pathanamthitta by order dated 6.2000. After serving for three years at Pathanamthitta, the petitioner requested for a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. That request was granted by order dated 211.2004 and he joined duty as Senior Superintendent in the District Medical Office (Homoeo), Thiruvananthapuram on 12.2004. In March 2005, the petitioner was transferred to Government Homoeo Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and in August 2005 to the Directorate of Homoeopathy at Thiruvananthapuram. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was transferred to District Medical office (Homoeo), Kollam and the first respondent was transferred and posted as Senior Superintendent in the petitioners place at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 essentially on two grounds. The first contention is that as he has less than two years to retire, he is entitled to be retained at Thiruvananthapuram (his native place). The second contention is that as per the guidelines governing transfer, though he has completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram, he can be replaced only by an officer who has completed three years service at another station. The petitioner contends that the first respondent had served for less than two years at Kollam and therefore as per the guidelines he is not entitled to be transferred out and posted at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has a further case that transfers on compassionate grounds cannot be effected otherwise than at the time of general transfer and Ext.P3 is bad on that count also. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P7 government order to contend for the position that the first respondent is not due for transfer from Kollam to Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P3 recites that the petitioner and the first respondent are mutually transferred to give transfer to the first respondent on compassionate grounds. Ext.P3 also notices that the petitioner has completed three years term at Thiruvananthapuram. Going by the guidelines governing transfer, the petitioner is liable to be transferred out from Thiruvananthapuram. Then the only question is whether the Director was right in posting the first respondent as the petitioners substitute at Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) THE Apex Court has in State of U.P. and others v Gobardhan Lal [2004(11) SCC 402] held as follows:

(3.) THE petitioner further relies on Ext.P7 to contend that the first respondent is not entitled to be transferred out from Kollam because he has not completed three years at Kollam. As noticed above, guidelines governing transfer exist only for the sake of guidance and the petitioner or any other employee cannot seek enforcement of the guidelines. The petitioner who has completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram cannot be heard to say that he can be replaced only by someone who has completed a similar term elsewhere. The transfer of the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram to Kollam which is a neighbouring district cannot be said to be in any way illegal. The writ petition is in my opinion wholly without merit and misconceived. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed.