IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5735 of 2010(N)
1. KUMARI,FIRST GRADE OVERSEER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF
3. THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :22/02/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). NO. 5735 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is working as a First Grade Overseer in the Corporation
of Thiruvananthapuram. She is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order dated 18.1.2010
whereby she was transferred and posted at Kanjangad Municipality in an
open vacancy. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the petitioner was so
transferred based on the recommendation of the Vigilance and Anti
Corruption Bureau. Its recommendation was to post the petitioner out of
Thiruvananthapuram District and not to transfer back till the completion of
the investigation of the case. Against Ext.P3 order of transfer, the petitioner
has filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent.
2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that she was placed
under transfer in connection with an incident that occurred on 15.3.2006 and
led to the registration of crime as VC.No.3 of 2009 by the Vigilance and
Anti Corruption Bureau under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, there is no reason to transfer
her based on the pendency of the said proceedings all of a sudden that too,
after allowing her to continue in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation itself for
about four years. Ext.P3 does not reveal that the registration of VC.No.3 of
W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 2
2009 is the reason for effecting the transfer. However, taking into account
the aforesaid contentions and also the fact that in the case of the person who
was placed under transfer along with the petitioner as per Ext.P3, this Court
had earlier passed an order in W.P.(C).No.4800 of 2010 directing the first
respondent therein to consider the representation filed by her and to pass
orders thereon with a further direction to allow her to continue in
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation till such a decision is taken, I am inclined
to grant a similar relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a
direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4
submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is
made clear that if the transfer ordered as per Ext.P3 is only in connection
with the registration of VC.No.3 of 2009, then in the circumstances
explained above, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in
Thiruvananthapuram Corporation itself till a decision is taken on Ext.P4.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
spc
W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 3
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C). NO.5735/2010
JUDGMENT
22nd February, 2010
W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 4