J.SUKUMARA PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.16981 of 2007-V ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007.J U D G M E N TThe petitioner who is a First Grade Draftsman working in PublicWorks Department, Roads Division, Kollam is transferred to Karunagappally, by Ext.P1 proceedings of the Chief Engineer, P.W.D.Administration, Thiruvananthapuram. This writ petition is filedchallenging Ext.P1, on the ground that the transfer order is issued inviolation of Ext.P3. The petitioner is due to retire in another one year. As per Ext.P3 transfer norms, a person who has got less than twoyears to retire shall not normally be transferred. The petitioner hasalready completed more than 3 years in the present station. But, according to him, unless somebody request for a posting in that place, he need not be disturbed. Of course, the petitioner has beentransferred in public interest. But, the same can be done only afterobtaining sanction of the Government. He submits, the transfer isordered in violation of Ext.P3. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the transfer, if the same isillegal or vitiated by malafides. Though, there is a vague allegationregarding malafides, no materials are produced in this writ petition, to WPC No. 16981 of 20072support the allegation. Violation of norms is not treated as anillegality. Therefore, no ground is made out warranting interferencewith the transfer, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails, and it is dismissed. But, thiswill not affect the rights, if any, of the petitioner to represent againstthe transfer, on the ground that the same is issued in violation of Ext.P3. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed Ext.P2representation before the second respondent. If Ext.P2 is receivedand pending, the second respondent will consider and pass orders onit, within one month from the date of production of a copy of thisjudgment.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.MS
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 04 Jun 2007. The bench was K BALAKRISHNAN NAIR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.