IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11435 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M. KASU, FORESTER, OLAVAKODE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, SRI.K.S.ROCKEY. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, EASTERN CIRCLE, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 11435 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working at Olavakode Range of Palakkad Forest Division. He is placed under order of transfer as per Ext.P2. He is ordered to be posted in Malappuram District. According to the petitioner, even going by the norms followed by the respondent for ordering transfer and postings as per Ext.P2 he is not liable to be transferred. As per Ext.P2, only those persons who had completed 3 years in Palakkad Division are considered for transfer and postings. It is the contention of the petitioner that in view of the said specific statement in Ext.P2, he might have been ordered to be transferred only by mistake. The order of transfer was issued only on 30.3.2010 and therefore, the petitioner's apprehension is that he will be relieved pursuant to Ext.P2 and, hence, no purpose will be served by approaching the authorities. However, the grounds raised by the petitioner are essentially relating to violation of norms. Those are matters which are looked into by the concerned competent authorities. Going by the very avowed policy, as is evident from Ext.P2 itself, persons who had completed the normal period of 3 years in WPC.11435 of 2010 : 2 : Palakkad Division alone are considered for transfer and postings. Therefore, there is force in the submission of the petitioner that he might have been wrongly included in Ext.P2. In view of the circumstances expatiated above, I think the Writ Petition can be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the first respondent by filing a detailed representation raising his claims and contentions and directing the first respondent to consider the same. Accordingly the petitioner is given liberty to file a detailed representation before the first respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, raising all such claims and contentions. In case, such a representation is received, the first respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner is yet to complete the normal tenure of three years and in view of the policy discernible from Ext.P2, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in Olavakkod Forest Range till such a decision is taken in terms of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma