The question involved in this Writ Petition is whether a writ Petition under Article 226 could be maintained to quash an order of transfer on the ground that it is not fully in consonance with the guidelines for transfer. G.O.(Prayer:) No.12/04/P&ARD dated 10.9.2004 (Ext.P5) issued by the Government contains the guidelines for “Minimum Tenure Policy for Government Employees of the State”. Ext.P2 dated 22.2005, issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, contain the guidelines for the transfer of employees in the Health and Family Welfare Department including doctors. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext,P6 order of transfer is violative of Exts.P2 and P5 guidelines.

2. The petitioner is working as Associate Professor, Department of Genito Urinary Surgery, in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P6 order of transfer-dated 15.2008, the petitioner was transferred and posted in Medical College, Kozhikode. As per the same order of transfer, the fifth respondent Dr. S. Vasudevan, Associate Professor, department of Genito Urinary Surgery, Medical College, Kozhikode, was transferred and posted as such in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The sixth respondent, Dr. Venugopalan, is working as Associate Professor in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the Sixth respondent is senior to the petitioner.

3. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner joined service as Tutor in Medical College on 2.1991. He was promoted as Assistant Professor on 24.1998 and posted in the Medical College, Calicut. He remained there in the same capacity up to 310.2003. (In the reply affidavit it is stated that the date shown as 310.2003 is a mistake and that the petitioner was working at Calicut from 24.1998 to 27.2000.) The petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on 28.2005 and was posted in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that the petitioner has declared Thiruvananthapuram as his home station.

4. The second respondent, the Director of Medical Education, issued Ext.P3 draft proposal for transfer and postings in 2008. Name of the petitioner is not included in Ext.P3 draft proposal. On the other hand, Dr. S. Vasudevan (the fifth respondent) was proposed to be transferred from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram. In the remarks column it is stated as follows: “Eligible for transfer. (No open vacancy.). Dr. G. Venugopalan, who has completed three years in Medical College, Trivandrum, to be transferred out.” It is stated in the Writ Petition that the sixth respondent has only one year of outstation service and, therefore, he was liable to be transferred. It is also stated that the proposal was to transfer the fifth respondent from Calicut to Thiruvananthapuram and to transfer the sixth respondent from Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner states that apprehending that the draft proposal to transfer the sixth respondent from thiruvananthapuram would be canceled, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 9.4.2008, to the first respondent. The further allegation in the Writ Petition is that on an extraneous consideration and acting in an arbitrary manner, the first respondent issued Ext.P6 order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram. Instead of transferring the sixth respondent. Since Ext.P6 shows that the transfer was issued considering the representation made by the fifth respondent, it cannot be said that the order of transfer was issued in public interest. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not completed three years at Thiruvananthapuram and, therefore, the order of transfer is violative of paragraph 3 of Ext.P5 guidelines. Ext.P6 is challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary, malafide, illegal, contrary to the guidelines and that it was issued due to extraneous consideration. A departure from Ext.P3 proposal, according to the petitioner, would show that ext.P6 was issued due to extraneous consideration. The petitioner is age