2016 Supreme(Ker) 620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
G.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, EXCISE GUARD - Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WA. NO.586 of 2011
Decided on : 17-11-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.), SMT.SMITHA GEORGE
For the Respondent: SRI.V.TEKCHAND
The concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply when there is no enforceable legal right.
Headnote:
Seniority - Inter District Transfer - Constitution of India, Article 14 - P.C. Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)d - IPC, Section 120B - [Seniority] - [Inter District Transfer] - [Constitution of India, Article 14, P.C. Act, 1988, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)d, IPC, Section 120B] - The court discussed the appellant's claim for maintaining seniority in the transferred district, the tainted order relied upon by the appellant, and the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and that the concept of equality under Article 14 does not apply when there is no enforceable legal right. The court cited several cases to support its position and ultimately dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Excise Guard, sought transfer from Wayanad District to Kottayam Division due to personal problems. His transfer was accepted with a condition that he would be the junior most in Kottayam Division. After joining, he sought restoration of his seniority to the same position as in Wayanad District, which was refused by the State Government. The appellant approached the court seeking restoration of his seniority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's claim for maintaining seniority in the transferred district was not valid, especially considering the tainted order relied upon by the appellant and the ongoing vigilance enquiry. The court emphasized that an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's seniority in the Wayanad District should be maintained in Kottayam District as well.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution does not apply when there is no enforceable legal right. The court emphasized that an illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated and cited several cases to support its position.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J
This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 15.03.2011 passed in R.P. No.1104 of 2009 and the judgment dated 01.10.2009 in W.P.(C) No.12213 of 2008 by the unsuccessful review petitioner, the first petitioner in the writ petition.
2. Records reveal that the appellant, while working as Excise Guard in Wayanad District, sought transfer to Kottayam Division because of some personal problems. Acceding to his request, the State Government transferred him from Wayanad to Kottayam Division. In otherwords, his prayer for inter district transfer was accepted with a specific condition that he will be the junior most in Kottayam Division from the date of joining duty there. The appellant accepted the said condition and joined at Kottayam. After joining there, he approached the Government, seeking restoration of his seniority to the same position where he was placed at Wayanad District. The said request was refused by the State Government and hence, he approached this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. After hearing, the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 01.10.2009, against which, a review petition came to be filed by him, which was also dismissed.
3. The only question to be decided is as to whether the appellant's seniority in the Wayanad District is to be maintained in Kottayam District also or not.
It is not in dispute that the excise guard is a District level officer. Inter district transfers are carried out only with the permission of the State Government. The State Government can suo motu transfer excise guards from one district to another due to administrative exigencies. So also, the State Government can transfer excise guards from one District to another if the request made by any of them is suitable to be accepted.
4. Admittedly, the appellant made application dated 3.6.1992 for transfer from Excise Range, Sultanbatheri, Wayanad District to Kottayam District on the ground of some personal problems. Accepting the prayer of the appellant, the Board of Revenue (Excise) ordered on 28.08.1992 to transfer him to Kottayam Division, with a specific condition that he would be the junior most in the said Division from the date of his joining duty there. A copy of the said order is produced as Annexure R1(a) in the review petition along with statement of objections.
5. The appellant accepted the said transfer order, which means that he agreed with the specific condition stated therein that he would be the junior most among the excise guards in the Kottayam Division from the date of his joining duty there. After having joined duty as junior most excise guard, he made a representation to restore his seniority on the ground that 19 persons, who were transferred from one district to another, at their request, were given all the benefits, including seniority. He relies upon Annexure A order dated 12.01.1993 to contend so. The said order makes it clear that the 19 persons, who were transferred from one district to another, have retained their seniority as was available in their parent district, though such transfers were made at their request.
6. In this context, the learned Government Pleader draws the attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to State Government dated 27.09.2010 in the review petition, making it clear that Annexure A order was issued by the then Secretary of the Board of Revenue (Excise) transferring and posting 19 excise guards from Kannur Division to various other divisions. Similarly several other orders were also issued thereby artificially creating 151 vacancies of Excise Guards in Kannur District with dishonest intention to accommodate 151 candidates from the rank list published by the Public Service Commission on 9.1.1989. In that regard, the Vigilance Department has ordered an enquiry in the matter as VC 2/97/KNR under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)d of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 120B I.P.C. against various officials. Charge sheet was laid