Shaffique, J.
The writ petitioner has filed this appeal challenging the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17820 of 2014 dated 07.08.2014. The Writ Petition was filed challenging paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 order, transferring the 4th respondent to Puliyankulangara and requesting to accommodate the petitioner at Puliyankulangara.
3. The facts involved in the case show that the petitioner was working as Santhi in Puliyankulangara Devaswom and he had completed three years. He was due to transfer in the year 2014. On account of certain ailments he submitted a representation, Ext.P3, before the competent authority and taking into consideration his request, his name was not included in the General Transfer list. However, subsequently in an appeal against the transfer order filed by the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent was permitted to continue at Puliyankulangara. This has created a situation where the petitioner will be displaced from the choice he had given. Petitioner, therefore approached this Court by filing the above writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge observed that in so far as there is no mala fides in the order of transfer, this Court cannot interfere with the same. However, it was mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the claim of the petitioner was re-considered and an order has been passed on 17.07.2014 giving the petitioner his first choice of posting at Kamankulangara Devaswom.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner contends that already by Ext.P4, his request for retaining him at Puliyankulangara was approved by the Commissioner and therefore, there was no reason to disturb the said posting. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4th respondent contended that the 4th respondent, who was about to retire, had a rightful claim in respect of posting at Puliyankulangara and even as per the norms, he is entitled to continue in the said post. In the appeal filed by 4th respondent the matter was re-considered and he was given posting at Puliyankulangara itself taking into consideration the norms available with the Devaswom Board. Therefore, it is a case where the transfer order had been issued in accordance with the norms by giving an opportunity to the 4th respondent to be posted at Puliyankulangara, till his date of retirement.
6. As far as the petitioner is concerned, his first choice was Kamankulangara which was considered and direction had been issued as Annexure A1 placing him in the said post. Under such circumstances, when the petitioner's first choice itself was Kamankulangara, petitioner cannot raise any complaint regarding the same. So far as his claim to retain in Puliyankulangara is concerned, an opportunity was given to continue in the said post, but it so happened that there was a rightful claimant to the said post, since the 4th respondent was about to retire and as per the norms, an opportunity had to be given to him, at the place of his choice.
Under these circumstances, we do not think that the petitioner has any legal right to challenge the order of transfer. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/14/10