High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
SALIM BABU P.K. v. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER - WP(C) No. 1768 of 2007(I)  RD-KL 12393 (6 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 1768 of 2007(I)
1. SALIM BABU P.K.,
1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
2. SRI. HARIDASAN M.,
3. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
4. UNION OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SAMEER
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC,BSNL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.W.P.(C) No.1768 of 2007 I
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2007.
The petitioner is a Sub Divisional Engineer working under the first respondent. He has been transferred from Kayamkulam to Alappuzha on 16.6.2004. He joined duty on 16.7.2004. The petitioner moved for exemption from shifting his residence from Kayamkulam to Alappuzha by submitting an application dated 11.9.2006. The said application was rejected by the competent authority by Ext.P4 communication dated 4.1.2007. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4.
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, an appeal was preferred before the competent authority. That was rejected by Ext.P6 order dated 8.3.2007. The writ petition is amended by incorporating the challenge against Ext.P6 dated 8.3.2007.
3. The petitioner submits, in the case of similarly situated persons, sanction has been given to reside outside the headquarters. He W.P.(C) No.1768 of 2007 alone has been discriminated in the matter of granting sanction. It is also pointed out that without any reason, he has been disturbed by transferring him to Alappuzha. The action of the respondents violates the provisions of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. So, he prays to quash Exts. P4 and P6.
4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that, as per the rules, the petitioner is bound to stay at the headquarters. When it was found that even after two years he is continuing to reside in Kayamkulam, steps were taken against him. Then the petitioner moved for permission to stay at Kayamkulam. That was rejected by Ext.P4. The appeal filed against it was also rejected by Ext.P6, on valid grounds. The reasons urged by the petitioner in his application do not afford good ground for granting his request. The petitioner has pointed out the case of two others and pleaded discrimination. Their cases have been considered and allowed on evaluating W.P.(C) No.1768 of 2007 the individual merits of their claims. So, the respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
6. As per the Rules, the petitioner is normally bound to reside at Alappuzha. Of course, it is within the discretion of the competent authority to grant sanction to reside outside the said area.
7. The point to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner's application had been rejected validly. Though Ext.P4 order is a non-speaking order, Ext.P6 has given the reasons for not allowing the case of the petitioner and also permitting others to reside outside the headquarters. I feel, the findings entered in this regard by the competent authority are findings of fact, which cannot be disturbed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The competent authority has found that the claim of the petitioner with reference to the education of the children and the income tax benefits are untenable. However, it is also W.P.(C) No.1768 of 2007 found that the petitioner has been continuing at Kayamkulam for more than 2 academic years. On the above ground, the petitioner's application has been rejected. I think, this decision of the competent authority cannot be described as perverse or irrational warranting interference by this court. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGEsk/ //true copy//
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.