Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, is subjected to transfer through Exhibit P1 from Medical College Section, Gandhi Nagar, Kottayam to Erattupetta Section within the District. The distance is said to be 30 Kms. Later through Exhibit P4 the fourth respondent was posted in petitioner's place at Kottayam.
3. Complaining of violation of the guidelines for transfer of Government employees issued in G.O. (P) No.15/89/P & ARD dated 22.05.1989, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 representation to the first respondent. Ventilating his grievance that the said representation has W.P.(c) No. 26438 of 2014 2 not been so far disposed of, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the petitioner is on the verge of retirement, in as much as he is to attain the age of superannuation in 11 months. Imputing malafides to the respondent authorities, having added one of the officials eo nominee, the petitioner wants this Court to nullify Exhibit P1 transfer order. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fourth respondent, who is posted as a replacement to the petitioner is only a provisional employee.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Firstly, he has submitted that the petitioner has already completed 3 ½ years in the present place of posting. He has further submitted that the Government Order referred to by the petitioner contains only guidelines which have to yield place to administrative exigencies. Further he has submitted that there is no embargo on posting a provisional employee in a substantive vacancy. Summing up his submissions the learned Standing W.P.(c) No. 26438 of 2014 3 Counsel has contended that the transfer is essentially a matter of administrative convenience and this Court may not interfere with it.
6. Be that as it may, having regard to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent corporation, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exhibit P3 representation of the petitioner keeping in view the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O. (P) No.15/89/P & ARD dated 22.05.1989, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that the interpretation of guidelines and its binding nature are issues to be addressed by the authorities independently and this Court has not expressed any opinion on it.
With the above observation, this wit petition is disposed of.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE