High Court Kerala High Court

K.D.Rajmohan vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.D.Rajmohan vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27478 of 2007(U)


1. K.D.RAJMOHAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CIVIL),

4. T.B.BHASKARAN,

5. K.A.SAJAN,

6. RASEENA SEBASTIAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :14/09/2007

 O R D E R
                               V. GIRI , J
               ==========================
                      W.P.(C) NO. 27478 OF 2007
               ==========================
             Dated this the 14th day of September, 2007.


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to be the senior most Upper Division

Clerk working in the office of the 3rd respondent, is aggrieved by

Ext.P2 order by which he was deployed to the newly established sub

Division of Harbour Engineering Department at Koyilandy. Ext.P1

order contemplates deployment for a period of six months. According

to the petitioner, Ext.P1 order mentions that the order of deployment

is intended to operate only in relation to surplus staff. There is no

surplus staff in the Executive Engineer’s office in Munambam Division

and consequentially he ought not to have been deployed.

2. I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P2. Obviously, the

order of deployment was due to administrative exigencies. Moreover,

the order of deployment seems to be for a limited period, as could be

seen from Ext.P1. When the period of deployment is extended, further

instructions will be issued in that regard by the Government. But, if

there is personal inconvenience, it could be rectified by the Chief

Engineer, without causing inconvenience to any other person. If the

W.P.(C) NO. 27478/2007 : 2:

petitioner seeks variation of Ext.P2 order, he may move the 2nd

respondent in that regard by a representation within a period of three

weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, the 2nd

respondent shall look into the same and take appropriate decision in

accordance with law. I make it clear that I am not expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case. The 2nd respondent shall take a

decision on the representation, to be filed in the manner mentioned

above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of the representation.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

V. GIRI, JUDGE.

rv

W.P.(C) NO. 27478/2007 : 3: