Kerala High Court
WA/2001/2011 of THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES Vs T.RAJENDRAN on 30 December 2011
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/9TH POUSHA 1933 WA.No. 2001 of 2011 () ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.33385/2011 DTD. 23.12.2011.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/9TH POUSHA 1933
WA.No. 2001 of 2011 ()
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.33385/2011 DTD. 23.12.2011.
..........
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN W.P.(C)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA 695 003. CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA 695 003.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
BY ADV.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.3 IN W.P.(C)
1. T.RAJENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, OFFICE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, (UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER AS TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TRANSFER AS TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682 301. ERNAKULAM 682 301.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, (UNDER ORDER OF
TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, TRIPUNITHURA,
2. M.FAZARUDHEEN, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KANAYANNUR, TRIPUNITHURA
ERNAKULAM 682 301.(UNDER ORDER OF TRANSFER AS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. SUPPLIES COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE CIVIL
BY ADV.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
W.A. NO.2001/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
A:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12.12.2011.
B:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES.RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES
NIL:-
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
tss
P.N.RAVINDRAN & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
---------------------------
W.A No. 2001 OF 2011
--------------------------
Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Ravindran, J.
This writ appeal arises from the interim order passed by alearned Single Judge of this Court on 23.12.2011 in W.P.(C)No.33385 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge directed theappellants (respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition) to permit thefirst respondent herein (writ petitioner) to continue as SeniorSuperintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies atThiruvananthapuram until further orders.
2. The writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P7 order dated12.12.2011 transferring the writ petitioner, who was working asSenior Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner of CivilSupplies at Thiruvananthapuram, to Taluk Supply Office, Kanayannur,Ernakulam and transferring the third respondent in the writ petition(second respondent in writ appeal) from Taluk Supply Office,Kanayannur, Ernakulam to the Office of the Commissioner of CivilSupplies at Thiruvananthapuram. The order of transfer waschallenged on various grounds including the contention that whenpersons who have requested for transfer to Ernakulam are available,there is no reason why the writ petitioner should be transferred to
Ernakulam. The writ petitioner has in ground D of the writ petitionspecifically alleged that two persons by name Sri.A.G.Vijayan andSri.P.Sreekumar, who are working as Senior Superintendents atThiruvananthapuram have requested for transfer to Ernakulam Districtand in such circumstances as the third respondent in the writ petitioncould have been accommodated at Thiruvananthapuram bytransferring out any one of the said two persons to Ernakulam District,the order transferring the petitioner cannot be sustained.
3. The appellants have not in the counter affidavit filed by them specifically denied the statement that Sri.A.G.Vijayan andSri.P.Sreekumar, who are working as Senior Superintendents atThiruvananthapuram have requested for transfer to Ernakulam. Allthat is stated in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit is that thoughthere are 9 superintendents working in the Commissionerate of CivilSupplies, 4 of them will retire from service by 31.3.2012, that out ofthe remaining five, three are women who have crossed the age of 52years, that the other two are the writ petitioner himself andSri.K.U.Issac, that Sri.K.U.Issac is well experienced in matters relatingto rationing of food articles and his service is essential for the smoothfunctioning of the Commissionerate of Civil Supplies and therefore adecision was taken to transfer the petitioner to Ernakulam to accommodate the third respondent.
4. When the writ appeal came up for admission hearing today,Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent /writpetitioner submitted that the Government have by G.O.(Rt)No.414/2011/F&CSD dated 19.12.2011 accorded sanction to theDirector of Civil Supplies to depute 16 officers in the cadre of TalukSupply Officer/Senior Superintendent/City Rationing Officer to KeralaState Civil Supplies Corporation and that Sri.K.U.Issac, named inparagraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 in thewrit petition, is one among the 16 persons named in the aforesaidGovernment order. The learned counsel appearing for the writpetitioner also submitted that consequent thereon the Director of CivilSupplies has by proceedings dated 27.12.2011 relieved Sri.K.U.Issacand given charge of the post of Senior Superintendent held bySri.K.U.Issac to Sri.R.Radhakrishnan Nair, Senior Superintendent. Thelearned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that in suchcircumstances the grounds stated in paragraph 8 of the counteraffidavit to justify the writ petitioner's transfer to Ernakulam toaccommodate the third respondent cannot be put forward. A copyeach of the aforesaid Government order and the proceedings weremade available to us for perusal. We have perused the same and they are incorporated in the records.
WA No.2001/2011
are incorporated in the records.
5. In our considered opinion in view of the fact that the post ofSenior Superintended held by Sri.K.U.Issac in the office of theCommissioner of Civil Supplies is now vacant consequent on hisdeputation to the Civil Supplies Corporation, the second respondentherein (third respondent in the writ petition) or the writ petitioner canbe accommodated at Thiruvananthapuram in that vacancy. Wetherefore find no reason to interfere with the interim order passed bythe learned single Judge.
The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
P.Q.BARKATH ALI,(JUDGE)
vps