High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
E.R. MINI v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 28630 of 2006(G)  RD-KL 1520 (6 November 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 28630 of 2006(G)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER
3. LEENA RAVIDAS, W/O. DR. K.S.SHELLY,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.GANGESH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 28630 OF 2006 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th November, 2006
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner while working as Asst. Director in the Regional Office, Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Ernakulam has been transferred and posted as Assistant Director (Curriculum) in the Directorate of Vocational Higher Secondary Education, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears that a vacancy was existing as on the date of Ext. P1 order. The grievance of the petitioner is that she has been transferred from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram within a period of four months from the date of her joining duty in the Ernakulam office, and that too, to accommodate a fresh recruit like respondent No. 3. It is pointed out that even without disturbing the petitioner, the 1st respondent could have accommodated the 3rd respondent in the post of Asst. Director (Curriculum) in the Directorate at Thiruvananthapuram. The 3rd respondent was posted on fresh appointment in the office of the Vocational Higher Secondary Education WPC No. 28630/2006 -2- at Vadakara. Since a Junior Lecturer, on deputation, had been working there, the posting thus given to the 3rd respondent, was cancelled. It was in the above circumstances, Ext. P1 happened to be passed. The petitioner legitimately feels that even if the officer on deputation had to be accommodated at Vadakara, nothing prevented the 1st respondent from posting a fresh recruit like the 3rd respondent at Thiruvananthapuram, instead of disturbing the petitioner and subjecting her to suffer premature transfer from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Though the suggestion made by the petitioner appears to be reasonable, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the matter at this stage. Government is presumed to know the needs of the administration and the grievances of its employees, and hence, it is only proper that the Government bestows a second thought on the matter and make such rearrangements as are necessary, in the interest of justice as also public interest.
3. The petitioner has approached the Government by filing Ext. P4 representation which contains all the WPC No. 28630/2006 -3- relevant facts and circumstances necessitating proper consideration by the Government.
4. I have heard the Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order I propose to pass notice need not be issued to respondent No. 3.
5. In the circumstances, there shall be an order directing the 1st respondent to look into the grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in Ext. P4, and if necessary, after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within one month on the petitioner producing a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.K. DENESAN
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.