IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP No. 686 of 2004(J)
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Petitioner
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
Vs
1. A.R.PRADEED KUMAR, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :31/10/2007
O R D E R
V. GIRI ,J.
-------------------------------
R.P.NO.686 of 2004
---------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner, while working as a Senior Grade Assistant
in the General Administration Department was appointed as a Block
Development Officer in the Rural Development Department. He
joined duty on 14.10.1993. On 19/2/1998, the petitioner sought for
re-patriation to the parent department. When he submitted Ext.P4,
the petitioner was not yet confirmed as Block Development Officer
in the Rural Development Department. Thereafter the petitioner
submitted Ext.P6 representation claiming the benefit of the Full
Bench decision of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v Ram Mohan
Nair (1998(1) KLT 766). The petitioner was then told that the
Supreme Court had granted an order of status quo in the special
leave petition against the aforementioned judgment. Subsequently
the decision of the Full Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court
in Ali v State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 922). Thereupon the
petitioner renewed his request for re-patriation back to the parent
department as Ext.P8.
2. The writ petition was filed for a direction that the petitioner
be repatriated to his parent department on the basis of Ext.P8.
R.P.NO.686 of 2004 2
When the writ petition came up for admission, it seems that the
Government Pleader had submitted that follow up action will be
taken on Ext.P8. There is a controversy as to whether the
government pleader had also undertaken that the petitioner will be
accommodated in the parent department without delay. Review
petition is filed in relation to the submission of the government
pleader to the effect that the petitioner will be accommodated in
the parent department.
3. It may also be necessary in this context to refer to certain
events which took place subsequent to the judgment which is
sought to be reviewed during the pendency of the review petition.
The Commissioner of Rural Development proceeded to pass
Annexure-R1 order (produced by the writ petitioner along with the
counter affidavit) on 15.10.2005 (review petition is presented on
7.9.2004) by which 273 Block Development officers including the
original petitioner was confirmed in the post of Block Development
Officers. Some of them challenged Annexure-R1 order in W.P.(C)
23343/2004. The contention was that those persons who are listed
in Ext.R1(a) had not completed their probation in the post of Block
Development Officers and therefore they could not have been
R.P.NO.686 of 2004 3
confirmed in the said post. This Court accepted the contention and
by judgment dated 13.7.2007, set aside the order, insofar as it
affected the petitioners therein and held that the petitioners therein
are liable to be repatriated to the Administrative Secretariat.
4. I heard the learned government pleader and the learned
counsel for the writ petitioner. It may be true that when the writ
petition came up for admission the government pleader only
submitted that Ext.P8 will be considered and appropriate action will
be taken. It may not have been open to the government pleader to
give an undertaking, when the writ petition had only come up for
admission, that the writ petitioner will actually be repatriated to the
parent department. I find no reason not to accept the case put
forward in the review petition. In the circumstances, the judgment
dated 9.3.2004 in W.P.(C)8080/2004 is reviewed and the writ
petition is restored to file.
V. GIRI, JUDGE
css/
