A K AZEEM Vs. A G PANDURANGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is working as Gardener under the second respondent, is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order of transfer from the Main Centre at Palode to the extension centre at Puthenthope.

(2.) Petitioner was initially appointed as Gardener under the first respondent at Puthenthope on contract basis in the year 1999. He was regularised in the year 2000. While working at the Extension Centre at Puthenthope, petitioner requested for a temporary transfer to the Main Centre at Palodu on compassionate grounds and hence he was granted the same in the year 200 Petitioner has been continuing there since then. In the year 2016, he was transferred to Puthenthope, as per Ext.P2 order on 20.07.2016. This Court stayed the order of transfer and petitioner continued there. As per Ext.P6 judgment, the said order of transfer was set aside seeing that the same was ordered on the basis of a request from a trade union. While setting aside that transfer, it was made clear that it would be open to the respondents to pass fresh orders of transfer. Ext.P7 order was passed thereafter. According to the petitioner the present transfer is only to wreak vengeance on him for challenging the previous transfer order. According to the petitioner no reason is stated in the order of transfer and there is no substitute posted in his place. Petitioner has alleged mala fides impleading the Director of the second respondent personally.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 as well as the 3rd respondent have filed statements through the respective Standing Counsel.