Seena K vs Kerala State Electricity Board, Pushpa. T., Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Transmission Circle, Malappuram-673001 and Sreekumar, Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board

Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon

1 The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to Ext. P2 transfer order, whereby the petitioner has been displaced from Ernakulam to Kozhikode, while the 3rd respondent who is stated as having longer station seniority has been retained and hence under challenge. The case of the petitioner is that, she is working as an Executive Engineer and was permitted to join duty at Ernakulam nearly one year and ten months back; prior to which she was working at Kannur. It is stated that her husband is working at Nadapuram and there is nobody to look after affairs in the family. Considering the request made by the petitioner, she was given a transfer and posting from Kannur to Ernakulam and it was accordingly that she joined the station earlier. Shortly afterwards, she stands transferred as per Ext. P2 order, to a far off place at Kozhikode, contrary to the relevant norms issued by the Board itself as borne by Ext. P1, without enabling the petitioner to complete the minimum tenure of three years at Ernakulam.

It is the specific case of the petitioner that, undue favours are being extended to persons having longer station seniority like the 3rd respondent, who is continuing at Ernakulam for more than ''five'' years, which is not liable to be entertained in view of the clear stipulation under Ext. P1. The 1st respondent Board has filed a statement seeking to sustain Ext. P2. In paragraph ''3'' it has been stated that, but for a short spell of nearly 5 months and 22 days in Kannur, the petitioner has been working in different offices in Ernakulam District itself for nearly 18 years 7 months and 4 days. Particulars of service of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have been produced in the form of a table vide Annexure R1(a). With regard to the contention of the petitioner as to the retention of persons having longer station seniority, it is pointed out in paragraph ''7'' that, one such officer stands protected from transfer, being a physically challenged person; another one being a widow and yet another one being a protected member of an organization of the employees, thus necessitating the transfer of the petitioner to accommodate the 2nd respondent, who is having a better claim.

With regard to the retention of the 3rd respondent, it is stated in paragraph ''9'' that the 3rd respondent is an experienced hand in the ''distribution side'' and hence retained at Ernakulam, though he is a native of Alappuzha. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Clause ''8'' of Ext. P1 guidelines which stipulates that, notwithstanding any thing mentioned above, the Board reserves the right to transfer or retain any officer in any place in the interest of career planning, or considering the exceptional skill, qualification in a specialised area of an officer or in exigencies of service of public interest. Referring to the credentials, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner also does have sufficient experience in the ''distribution side'' and that, Annexure R1(a) reveals that the 3rd respondent has been retained in Ernakulam for more than 19 years, but for two short spells of few months elsewhere.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no dispute with regard to the rights and liberties of the 2nd respondent who has been ordered to be placed at Ernakulam against the post which was earlier occupied by the petitioner and that the dispute is more with regard to the posting/retention given to the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that, pursuant to Ext. P2 order, the 2nd respondent had already been relieved from Malappuram and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, she is not in a position to join duty at Ernakulam and is put to much loss and hardship. After hearing, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Board; especially with regard to the claim for a posting/retention at Ernakulam, in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a detailed representation before the 1st respondent Board within ''two weeks'' form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Board after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the 3rd respondent to substantiate the rival claims. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within ''six weeks'' thereafter.

The interim order of ''status quo'' passed by this Court on 30.10.2012 and extended thereafter from time to time stands vacated, so as to enable the 2nd respondent to join duty at Ernakulam. Continuance of 3rd respondent at Ernakulam and the transfer of the petitioner to Kozhikode vide Ext. P2 shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the 1st respondent as aforesaid.

Writ petition is disposed of.