IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 695 of 2007(G)
1. P.D.THANKAMANI, U.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :30/03/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
--------------------------------
WP(C).Nos. 695 & 9498 OF 2007 G
--------------------------------
Dated this the 30th March, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in these two writ petitions is the same
person. She commenced service as Lower Division Clerk and
was promoted as Upper Division Clerk as per order dated
8.8.2006 passed by the third respondent. Ministerial and
technical staff belonging to the Public Works Department
are ordered to be deployed to the Local Self Government
Department in the exigencies of service. Deployment became
necessary since the developmental and like activities
carried on by the Public Works Department, Irrigation
Department etc. were entrusted with the Local Self
Government Department. Deployment is ordered based on
certain norms formulated by the Government. Those who
expressed their willingness to be deployed will be
preferred first for deployment. Thereafter, if sufficient
number of manpower is not available to execute the work in
the Local Self Government Department, employees will be
deployed even if they have not expressed their willingness.
But that is done only according to the juniority of persons
in the respective categories.
2. W.P(C) 695/2007 has been filed by the petitioner
for the issuance of a writ of mandamus restraining the
WPC Nos: 695 & 9498/2007 2
respondents 1 and 3 from deploying the petitioner to the
Local Self Government Department without her consent.
Taking note of the ground urged by the petitioner that she
was not one of the juniormost clerks and that the question
of inter se seniority was under consideration by the
authorities and that the petitioner had filed
representation produced as Ext.P6 in that writ petition,
this Court passed an interim order directing the
respondents to keep the order of deployment of the
petitioner in abeyance until decision was taken on Ext.P6.
Pursuant to order dated 8.1.2007, thus passed by this
Court, the third respondent has issued Ext.P8 order dated
13.2.2007 holding that the petitioner is one of the
juniormost Upper Division Clerks as on the date of the
order deploying her to Local Self Government Department.
Ext.P8 order further says that orders of deployment have
been issued strictly in accordance with G.O(P)186/2000/LSGD
dated 4.7.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has
filed W.P(C) 9498/2007 seeking to quash Ext.P8 and for a
direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to
continue in the Public Works Department.
3. Since the petitioner has contended that Ext.P8
order was passed violating the principle of seniority and
that she is not that far junior in the category of Upper
WPC Nos: 695 & 9498/2007 3
Division Clerk, so as to include her in the list of
deployed clerks, the Government Pleader was directed to
ascertain the position of the petitioner in the category of
Upper Division Clerk.
4. Govt. Pleader on instruction states that as per
Ext.P1 order dated 8.8.2006 in W.P(C) 9498/2007 issued by
the third respondent 59 Lower Division Clerks including the
petitioner, have been promoted and that by a subsequent
order of promotion issued on 8.9.2006, 28 persons more have
been promoted. The name of the petitioner is shown against
serial No: 59 in Ext.P1 order. Govt. Pleader further
submits that all persons except four Upper Division Clerks
who are due to retire within a period of one year covered
by the aforesaid two orders, have been deployed.
5. On a consideration of the materials available on
record and the submissions made by counsel on both sides, I
am inclined to take the view that the petitioner cannot
validly claim that she is not one among the juniormost
persons who should suffer an order of deployment. The fact
that the petitioner is serial No:59 in the order dated
8.8.2006 and only 28 persons more have been promoted to the
Upper Division cadre subsequently, demonstrates the place
of the petitioner among the Upper Division Clerks. Having
regard to the number of persons deployed, it cannot be
WPC Nos: 695 & 9498/2007 4
successfully argued that the petitioner is not liable to be
deployed. Hence the contention urged by the petitioner on
the ground that she is not one of the juniormost persons in
the Upper Division category is liable to be rejected.
6. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner that
deployment is akin to deputation to foreign service and
that such deputation cannot be ordered unless the employee
expresses his/her willingness, is devoid of merit.
Deputation or deployment is a method resorted to in the
exigencies of service. Willingness of the persons deputed
or deployed is not a legal requirement, as per the Rules.
7. The grievance of the petitioner that the
preparation of seniority shall not be delayed has to be
considered by the respondents and appropriate steps
taken. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the
representations filed by her for expediting the seniority
list as early as possible. It is also open to the
petitioner to bring to the notice of the authorities her
contention with supporting materials, that the strength of
the ministerial employees and the technical staff in the
Public Works Department is below the minimum required in
the department.
8. I am not satisfied that Ext.P8 is liable to be
interfered with by this Court. The declaration as also the
WPC Nos: 695 & 9498/2007 5
direction sought for to restrain the respondents from
deploying the petitioner cannot be granted. I, however,
make it clear that the respondents will be free to consider
the request of the petitioner to repatriate her to the
parent department as and when she becomes eligible for such
repatriation and to pass orders in that behalf. With the
above observations, these writ petitions are dismissed.
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj