Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE S.MURUGAN versus DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE S.MURUGAN v. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER - WP(C) No. 12509 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 7541 (11 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12509 of 2007(S)

1. M.RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE S.MURUGAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. SRI.G.RAVINDRANATHA KURUP,

3. UNION OF INDIA,

4. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :11/04/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN & A.K. BASHEER, JJ.

W.P(C)NO: 12509 OF 2007 Dated this the 11th April, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Denesan, J.

The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench seeking to set aside Ext.P4 order promoting him to the post of Technician III and posting him at Alappuzha. As on the date of passing Ext.P4 he was working at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner he ought not to have been posted anywhere other than at Thiruvananthapuram. It is contended that all others who were given the benefit of promotion by Ext.P1 order have been posted at Thiruvananthapuram and a hostile discrimination has been practiced against the petitioner. According to him, he belongs to a scheduled caste community and is entitled to the protection in matters of transfers and postings, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Railways.

2. The Tribunal considered the contentions of the petitioner and that of the respondents and found that the protection claimed by the petitioner cannot be allowed in the matter of transfers and postings since the benefit of WPC 12509/2007 2 reservation contemplated in Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India will not extend to matters other than appointments/promotions. The Tribunal has taken such a view following the decision of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal also found that employees cannot, as of right, get the benefit of the guidelines issued by Administrative Authorities and that judicial review cannot be extended to areas other than to review orders of transfers challenged on the ground of malafides or statutory violation or incompetency.

3. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. Hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not so far been relieved pursuant to Exts.P1 and P4. If the petitioner has not so far been relieved, the respondents concerned shall pass appropriate orders and the petitioner will be free to join duty at Alappuzha and thereafter to submit representation, if any, before the WPC 12509/2007 3 respondents for getting a transfer back to Thiruvananthapuram. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. K.K.DENESAN Judge A.K. BASHEER Judge jj

K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

M.F.A.NO:

JUDGMENT

Dated:


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.