Stephen vs The Secretary on 13 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1179 of 2010()



1. STEPHEN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :13/07/2010

 O R D E R
             J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
                  ------------------------------------------
                         W.A.No.1179 of 2010
                  ------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14418 of

2010 is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant was originally working as Overseer

Grade-II in the Department of Water Resources. On 25.4.2003, it

appears that he was deployed on a temporary basis to another

department, namely the Local Self Government Department. The

appellant was initially not happy with the terms of his employment

in the new department, the details of which may not be necessary for

the present purpose. Therefore, when an opportunity came, he

expressed his inclination to go back to the parent department on 31st

January, 2008. However, on 29.12.2008 even before a final

decision could be taken by the respondents on his option to go back

to the parent department he sought to rescind his option. However,

W.A.No.1179 of 2010

– 2 –

notwithstanding such withdrawal, the respondents proposed to

repatriate the appellant to his parent department and therefore he

approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ

petition.

3. A learned Judge of this Court by the judgment

under appeal recorded a finding that the relevant Rules provide

that the option once exercised cannot be cancelled. Inspite of

the specific query calling upon the learned counsel for the

appellant to produce the relevant Rules governing the service of

the appellant, the Rules have not been placed before us. In such

circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the

judgment under appeal.

The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the

admission stage.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice

P.N.Ravindran,
Judge
vns