Kerala High Court
WP(C)/13735/2025 of SAJITH.K. Vs STATE OF KERALA, on 11 April 2025
WP(C) NO. 13735 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 13735 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: 1 SAJITH.K. AGED 44 YEARS S/O KARUNAKARAN NAIR. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUPPLY CO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13735 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
SAJITH.K.
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O KARUNAKARAN NAIR. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUPPLY CO.
SUPERMARKET KAREET. ATTINGAL DEPOT, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURUM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT POIKAVILA
PUTHENVEEDU, PULIYOOR KONAM.P.O. KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101
SMITHA S.
AGED 41 YEARS
W/O AJAYAN S. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, OCHIRA SUPERMARKET
OFFICER IN CHARGE. KARUNNAGAPALLI SUPPLY CO. TALUK
DEPOT, KARUNNAGAPALLI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690528
SMITHA.S.R.
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O VINOD KUMAR. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KOLLAMSUPPLY CO.
TALUKDEPO. KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001
REJITH D.
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O G. DEVARAJAN JUNIOR ASSISTANT, KOLLAM SUPPLY CO.
TALUK DEPO. KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 691001
SANDHYA RANI
AGED 44 YEARS
W/O RAJANEESH BABU. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUPPLY CO. TALUK
DEPOKARUNNAGAPALLI KARUNNAGAPALLI P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT,, PIN - 690518
SREEJA C.V.
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O SABU T.V. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUPPLY CO. MAVELI STORE
ATTINGAL DEPOT, KALAMBALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT,,
PIN - 695605
JAYAKUMAR P.R.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI. SENIOR ASSISTANT I, SUPPLY CO.
DEPOT NEDUMANGADU. NEDUMANGADU P.O., TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695541
SUNIL RAJ L.E.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMANAN N. SENIOR ASSISTANT II, UCHAKADA MAVELI
STORE NEYATINKARA DEPOT UCHAKADA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695506
BY ADVS.
TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
P.A.SALIM
AJITH GEORGE KOOLA
RESPONDENT/S:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
THE KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682020
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI
BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
THE ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER ( P & A), THE KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI
BHAVAN, MAVELI ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
BY ADV R.RANJANIE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are employees of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, a Government of Kerala undertaking. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, challenging Ext.P4 order, whereby, they have been transferred from their present place of posting i.e., from Thiruvananthapuram to Palakkad.
2. As per the direction of this Court, a statement has been filed on behalf of the 02nd respondent Corporation stating that at present, Thiruvananthapuram region has excess staff, and there is a shortage of staff in Palakkad region. The request was received from the Regional Manager of Palakkad on 14.03.2025, stating that there was a huge shortage of staff in the Palakkad region.
3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have been transferred from their present place of posting to Palakkad, where they have been working for quite a substantial number of years. It is further stated that there is neither malafide nor the transfer of the petitioners is against the service rules, i.e., Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Common Service Recruitment Rules, 2021. Rule 156(2C) prescribed that it would be justified for the Corporation to transfer the employee for the smooth functioning of the office/ unit/ depot and the employee can be transferred at any time during a calendar year.
4. Paragraph 6 of the statement filed by the 02nd respondent would read as under: “6. Following the request of the Regional Manager, Palakkad the details of employees working in the same depot for more than 5 years were obtained from Thiruvananthapuram Regional Manager. After checking the list, the transfer order dated 22.3.2025 was issued, excluding employees due to retire within 3 years, and those with unhealthy conditions. On examining the staff strength in February 2025, of Palakkad region and Thiruvananthapuram region, it can be seen that the number of employees in the Thiruvananthapuram region is significantly higher. The table below shows the number of outlets of the Corporation and number of employees working in the outlets, in the Palakkad and Thiruvananthapuram region.
Palakkad Region Trivandrum Region Total No. of Outlets
No. of Senior Assistant-I
No. of Senior Assistant-II
No. of Senior Assistants
Assistant Sales Man
TOTAL
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners hold a transferable post and they can be transferred to any region under the relevant service rules. The transfer and posting are not malafide nor against the service rules. This court cannot decide whether the transfer and posting are justified or not, it is for the competent authority to post the employees working under him utilizing their best services to the interest of the organization, and the court should be loath to interfere with the transfer and posting of the employees. The transfer is an incidence of service, and unless there are overwhelming reasons to suggest that the transfer was not for administrative exigency but a result of a malafide exercise of powers, this court should not interfere with such administrative allegations.
6. In view thereof, I do not find that the petitioners have a claim to remain posted for the whole time at Thiruvananathapuram, and the writ petition does not appear to have any merit. The same is therefore dismissed, however, without cost. Needless to say, the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of 3rd and 4th respondents to consider and take the decision on Ext.P6 representation. The authority, while considering Ext.P6 representation without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- D. K. SINGH JUDGE SJ
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13735/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 19-12-2018 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3-4-2019 IN W.P(C)NO. 8246/2019. A COPY OF THE DATED 3-4- 2019 OF THIS HON. COURT.
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)3/2021/F & CSD DATED 11-2-
Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KSCSC/2382/2025-D10(ADMN) DATED 22-3-2025 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. M15 3855/15 DATED 21-3-2015
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit .P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-3- 2025 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-3- 2025 WITH TYPED COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION