IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1179 of 2010 ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.14418/2010 Dated 10/06/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------- STEPHEN, S/O.MICHAEL, AGED 50, BADHANIA, MULLUVILA PO, NEYYATTINKARA (DRAFTSMAN GRADE I, VELLANAD BLOCK PANCHAYATH, VELLANAD) BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENTAL OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRATARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1179 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14418 of 2010 is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant was originally working as Overseer Grade-II in the Department of Water Resources. On 25.4.2003, it appears that he was deployed on a temporary basis to another department, namely the Local Self Government Department. The appellant was initially not happy with the terms of his employment in the new department, the details of which may not be necessary for the present purpose. Therefore, when an opportunity came, he expressed his inclination to go back to the parent department on 31st January, 2008. However, on 29.12.2008 even before a final decision could be taken by the respondents on his option to go back to the parent department he sought to rescind his option. However, W.A.No.1179 of 2010 - 2 - notwithstanding such withdrawal, the respondents proposed to repatriate the appellant to his parent department and therefore he approached this Court by way of the abovementioned writ petition. 3. A learned Judge of this Court by the judgment under appeal recorded a finding that the relevant Rules provide that the option once exercised cannot be cancelled. Inspite of the specific query calling upon the learned counsel for the appellant to produce the relevant Rules governing the service of the appellant, the Rules have not been placed before us. In such circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns