IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19941 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.396/2009 of CAT,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-3. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PALGHAT. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL OPERATIONS MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SALEM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, SALEM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MARYMOL MANATTU, W/O.REJI MATHEW, STATION MASTER GR.III, PALGHAT DIVISION (UNDER TRAINING AS TRAFFIC APPRENTICE), PERMANENT ADDRESS, BHAGAVATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686632. ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19941 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This writ petition is filed by the Railway establishment challenging an order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on O.A.396/09, directing that the applicant therein be retained in Palghat Division by giving her a posting there for the different reasons stated in that order. The Tribunal found that, it being not in dispute that she was placed No.1 in the select list of Apprentice Trainees, she had an accrued right for an option to choose the Division depending upon the availability of vacancy, especially in the context of her juniors in the select list being alloted Palghat Division itself. The Tribunal was of the view that like every other employee, the applicant had an option to opt out of SA Division (Salem), to be exercised in writing, and even if that was not exercised by WPC.19941/10 2 her as she had already made a request for transfer to Palghat in 2004, she ought to have been given an opportunity to exercise option even if the administration is of the view that her request for a transfer registered in 2004 stood cancelled on her promotion. When this matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondent states that as of now, she has been transferred to Trivandrum and hence the writ petition itself has become infructuous. Even otherwise, we do not find that the writ petition deserves to be heard because all that is required is to provide accommodation to the respondent in terms of the order of the Tribunal. However, as the respondent is awaiting to be relieved to Trivandrum, we dismiss this writ petition as infructuous recording that submission. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.13/07.