IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2196 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYALEKSHMI.R, U.D.CLERK,DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NO.36/417-A, GOVERNMENT QUARTERS, POOJAPPURA, KARAMANA(P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THAHSILDAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2196 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Upper Division Clerk in the Directorate of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram. She was allotted Quarter No.36/417-A and she is in occupation of the same ever since the allotment. Now, the petitioner has been served with a copy Ext.P5 proceedings dated 8.1.2010 of the second respondent whereby a direction has been issued to the third respondent to take immediate steps to evict the petitioner from the aforesaid quarters. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The core contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 has been issued in blatant violation of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules for Allotment and Occupation of Government Servant's Quarters in Kerala, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that possession of own residence by the petitioner is the reason stated for ordering eviction. The contention of the petitioner is that her own residence is in a dilapidated condition. The petitioner has also raised W.P.(C) NO. 2196/2010 2 certain other grounds in support of her contentions. Be that as it may, there is a provision under Rule 21 of the said Rules for preferring an appeal against an order passed under Rule 19 of the Rules. The petitioner has not so far preferred any appeal, as provided under the Rules. In the circumstances, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the first respondent by way of an appeal against Ext.P6 order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such an appeal, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till a decision is taken on the appeal, if any, preferred by the petitioner, she shall not be evicted from the aforesaid quarters, in pursuance of Ext.P5. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 2196/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 2196/2010 JUDGMENT 10th February, 2010