Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

I.SUSHAMMA, L.D.CELRK versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


I.SUSHAMMA, L.D.CELRK v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 13810 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 11846 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13810 of 2007(R)

1. I.SUSHAMMA, L.D.CELRK,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFICER,

4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C) No.13810 of 2007 R

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk, working in the Dairy Development Department. By Ext.P3 order dated 17.6.2005, the Government ordered to deploy 24 clerks from the Dairy Development Department, along with others from various departments, to the Department of Local Self Government. Pursuant to that order, the petitioner has been deployed as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.3.2007. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P4 on the ground that the petitioner is being transferred retaining three of her juniors, who are serial Nos.101, 102 and 103 in Ext.P1 seniority list of Lower Division Clerks in the department of Dairy Development as on 1.1.2006.

2. Learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that those three W.P.(C) No.13810 of 2007 persons joined duty only by the end of November, 2005, before the issuance of Ext.P3. As on the date of Ext.P3, the petitioner and another were the junior most in the list of Kollam District and so, they were deployed.

3. This court, on 24.4.2007, passed an interim order stating that the deployment shall be strictly in accordance with seniority and if there are juniors to the petitioner at the present station, she shall not be deployed to any other station.

4. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the said interim order, she has not been deployed so far.

5. The deployment is made when the incumbents are surplus in the parent department and their services are required in the Local Self Government Department. Normally, juniors are to be deployed first. For deciding who are juniors, there must be a cut off date. Going by the date of Ext.P3, I W.P.(C) No.13810 of 2007 find nothing illegal in the deployment of the petitioner. But, since the petitioner has not been deployed and three juniors of the petitioner are there in the Department in Kollam District, the competent authority among the respondents shall decide whether the petitioner should be deployed to the Department of Local Self Government now. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.