Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DAVIKA P.P., D/O.LATE K.K.VENUGOPAL versus DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, INTEGRATED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DAVIKA P.P., D/O.LATE K.K.VENUGOPAL v. DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, INTEGRATED - WP(C) No. 18825 of 2006(S) [2007] RD-KL 5755 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18825 of 2006(S)

1. DAVIKA P.P., D/O.LATE K.K.VENUGOPAL,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, INTEGRATED
... Respondent

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PROCESSING AND

3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

4. SMT.LEKHA.R., SALESMAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

J.B. KOSHY and T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C) No. 18825 of 2006 S

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2007

Judgment

Koshy, J.

Petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in Marketing Section in the Integrated Fisheries Project, Cochin. As per the terms of appointment, she is bound to be transferred to any place in India. Petitioner took long leave for three years to join her husband at Oman. When she came back, she was posted at Palai. She wanted to continue in the earlier post at Cochin. She filed O.A. No.401 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal directed that transfer and posting should not be given in the midst of an academic year on the ground that her daughter was studying at Cochin. After the academic year was over, she was again posted to Palai. She refused to go there and took medical leave and thereafter challenged the transfer order. The tribunal found that as per the terms of the appointment order, there is no illegality in the impugned order. There is no mala fides also in the posting order. It is also further noticed that if a person goes on long W.P.(C).No.18825/2006 2 leave frequently, the competent authority has to make working arrangement. No mala fides are attributed against the respondent. Hence, posting the petitioner at Palai cannot be interfered with. It is submitted that fourth respondent is hailing from Ettumanoor and it is convenient for the fourth respondent for a posting at Palai. It is now further submitted that a vacancy is existing in Cochin. If that be so, petitioner may first obey the transfer order and thereafter either file a petition for mutual transfer with the fourth respondent or request for giving a posting at Cochin. If such a representation is filed, that should be considered. We see no grounds to interfere in the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal as there is no perverse finding or patent illegality so as to attract article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGE

vaa W.P.(C).No.18825/2006 3 J.B. KOSHY AND

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C) No.18825/2006 S Judgment

Dated:21st March, 2007


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.