Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT.SHANTI C.S., JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR versus THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, INDUSTRIAL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SMT.SHANTI C.S., JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR v. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, INDUSTRIAL - WP(C) No. 17180 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 12898 (12 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17180 of 2007(T)

1. SMT.SHANTI C.S., JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, INDUSTRIAL
... Respondent

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRAINING,

3. SMT.K.V.JALAJAKUMARI,

4. SMT.K.K.SARASWATHI, JUNIOR INSTRUCTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :12/07/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C)No.17180 of 2007 T

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Junior Instructor (Higher Grade) working under the first respondent. The petitioner is a native of Muvattupuzha. By Ext.P1 order, she has been transferred from Chalakudy to Pallikathode, which is a very inconvenient place for her. The same has been done to accommodate the 3rd respondent, who was working in Pallikathode in the place of the petitioner, it is submitted. She points out that the 3rd respondent has completed only less than 2 years' service at Pallikathode. Therefore, her turn has not arisen for transfer. The impugned transfer order would show that the 3rd respondent has been brought back, as her transfer was effected earlier during the middle of a training. The petitioner submits, the said ground is plainly untenable and the said respondent does not have any such case. The petitioner further points out that even assuming that the 3rd respondent is liable to be accommodated at Chalakudy, the 4th respondent, who is senior in the station, should have been disturbed, it is submitted. Being aggrieved by the said transfer ordered under Ext.P1, the petitioner has preferred W.P.(C) No.17180 of 2007 Exts.P2 and P3 representations before the 1st respondent. Thereafter this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 and also praying for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representations.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for the official respondents. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the grievance of the petitioner raised in Exts.P2 and P3, in accordance with law, in the light of the transfer norms, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy oft his judgment. If respondents 3 and 4 have any objection in granting the prayer of the petitioner, they may also file individual representations before the 1st respondent, within three weeks from today, setting out their objections. 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.