IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19902 of 2008(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------ SYAM.G.ASSISTANT ENGINEER, INLAND NAVIGATION SECTION 1, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, CHAKKAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PRABHAVAM, PMRA-C-10, T.C.54/1793(1), NEAR N.S.S.KARAYOGAM, PAPPANAMCODE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SMT.SREELEKHA.B., MI SECTION, NEDUMANGADU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 19902 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 2nd July, 2008 J U D G M E N T While working in the Irrigation Department as an Assistant Engineer, petitioner opted to be deployed to the Local Self Government Engineering Wing taking note of Exhibit-P1 Government Order. Petitioner's option is contained in Exhibit-P3. Apparently, accepting the petitioner's option he has been later deployed to the Local Self Government Department, as evidenced by Exhibit-P6. Petitioner submits that he had actually given an option for deployment to the Local Self Government on a mistake and therefore even before Exhibit-P6, he had submitted Exhibit P4 dated 22.3.2008 seeking to withdraw the option. The reason given in Exhibit-P4 to withdraw the option is that petitioner came to know that there is no vacancy in Trivandrum Disatrict and his presence is very much required at Trivandrum to look after his aged parents. Apparently, withdrawal of the option was not W.P ( C) No. 19902 of 2008 2 taken note of by the respondents. Under Exhibit-P7 order, petitioner is now deployed to Local Self Government Department and posted at Chambakulam in Alappuzha district. This is challenged in the writ petition. 2. Seniority in the post is a guiding criteria for deployment to the Local Self Government Department amongst the non-optees. Since the petitioner has opted, it cannot be said that the acceptance of the option and deployment as per Exhibit-P7 is illegal. In the instant case, apparently, the petitioner had sought to withdraw the option and if that be so, a decision may be taken whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the option. Exhibit-P4 seems to be addressed to the Minister. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it has actually been forwarded to the 3rd respondent Chief Engineer and is pending before him Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's request for withdrawing the option submitted as per Exhibit-P3. This shall be done W.P ( C) No. 19902 of 2008 3 notwithstanding the fact that he has now been deployed under Exhibit-P7. If it is found that petitioner has sought for withdrawal of option and if it is otherwise permissible taking note of the personal factors pleaded by the petitioner, order shall be passed on the application for withdrawal of option, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. For the sake of convenience, petitioner shall file a detailed representation along with copy of this judgment and also a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent, for compliance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 19902 of 2008 4 W.P ( C) No. 19902 of 2008 5