IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12919 of 2008(K)
1. GEORGE MAMMEN, S/O.KOCHU VARKEY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR,
3. JACOB MENACHERY, ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :12/03/2009
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 12919 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by the order
of transfer Ext.P2. As per Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred from
Alappuzha and posted as Electrical Inspector in Kannur. Petitioner
challenged the same before this Court filing W.P.(C) No.3804 of 2008.
This Court directed the respondents to consider the grievance raised
by the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation. He was also allowed to file a
supplementary representation in the matter. Petitioner is permanently
settled in Ernakulam and the third respondent is a native of Angamaly.
He had also sought for accommodation in an open vacancy which
would arise Thrissur on 1.3.2008. The third respondent also submitted
his written consent as per Ext.P6. The vacancy which was due to arise
in Thrissur was a promotion vacancy. By Ext.P7, again the petitioner’s
request was rejected stating that no change is required. Petitioner
contend for the position that the said order was passed without
considering the directions issued by this Court and without considering
the grievance raised by the petitioner.
2. While admitting this writ petition, this Court passed an interim
order on 11.04.2008 directing the first respondent to consider the
posting of the petitioner in the vacancy at Thrissur, if it is not filled up
so far.
wpc: 12919 of 2009
2
3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that there
was no vacancy at Thrissur at the time of issuance of Ext.P7. The
order passed by the Government is not justified on the ground that
competent claims have been considered while taking the decision.
4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that in the vacancy that arose in Thrissur another person has
been accommodated already. The petitioner is a native of Ernakulam
district and therefore, he is seeking for a transfer to Ernakulam or in
Alappuzha.
5. Now the general transfer 2009 is due. Earlier, he was
working in Wayanad from where he was transferred to Alappuzha. The
claim of the petitioner will be considered during the General Transfer,
2009. Appropriate orders will be passed by taking note of the fact that
the petitioner had been agitating for a transfer back, in the earlier writ
petition and again in the present one.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
bps
