Earnest C. Thomas v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/4TH CHAITHRA, 1937 OP(KAT).No. 101 of 2015 (Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA (EKM) 293/2015 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 12-03-2015 PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- EARNEST C. THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O C.P.THOMAN KUTTY, SECRETARY, BLOCK PANCHAYAT (BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER) BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE , CHALAKKDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 037 RESIDING AT CHIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHRUVALOOR P.O. KORATTY, VIA. THRISSUR, PIN:680 308, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANFER AS BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER KALPETTA, BLOCK PANCHAYAT, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN:673 121, KERALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------------- 1.
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA-695001.
2.
COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SWARAJ BHAVAN NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695 011.
3.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR, KERALA-680 003.
4.
SHRI. K.T.VARGHESE PRESIDENT, CHALAKKUDY BLOCK PANCHAYAT BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY P.O., THRISSUR KERALA-680 307.
5.
SHRI V.SUKESH KUMAR, BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, KALPETTA BLOCK PANCHAYAT WAYANAD DISTRICT PIN:673 121 (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER AS SECRETARY BLOCK PANCHAYAT/BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 037), KERALA.
6.
ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL) CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR KERALA-680 003.
BY SRI.S.JAMAL, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 101 of 2015 (Z) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF O.A.(EKM)NO.293/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.3.2015 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.293/2015.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.
jg
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.HARILAL, JJ.
.................................................................... OP(KAT) No.101 of 2015 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of March, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, quite in extenso.
2.Under challenge is an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere with transfer of the petitioner who is the Secretary of a Block Panchayat. He has been transferred from Chalakkudy to Kalpetta in Wayanad District.
3.Having seen the materials on record and the view of the learned Tribunal and having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we see that the situation could also be one where the petitioner faces the transfer as a result of difference of opinion between the
-2local MLA and the Block Panchayat and its president. But, as rightly noted by the learned Tribunal, the Government has transferred the petitioner in the exigencies of service. There is nothing stigmatic about it. He is not accused of any wrong which would visit him with disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal was justified in saying that the continuance of the President and the Secretary, namely, the appellant, in the same Block Panchayat is against larger public interest and it is obvious that the President being an elected representative cannot be transferred. Therefore, the only way to ensure that exigencies of service is satisfied was to transfer out the petitioner.
But, as rightly noted by the Tribunal, in the fitness of things, the Government has to find out, at the earliest, as to the mode by which the petitioner can be brought back to Thrissur District rather than force him to work in Wayanad District. The learned Tribunal has taken a pragmatic approach in considering different aspects of the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be arbitrary and we see no illegality in the order of the Tribunal.
-3not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (K.HARILAL, JUDGE) jg