IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH OCTOBER 2009 / 4TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30193 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JUSTIN JOSEPH, ASSISTANT PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR, DISTRICT LITERACY MISSION, VAYASKARAKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001, (NOW UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER). BY ADV. SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. KERALA STATE LITERACY MISSION AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR & MEMBER SECRETARY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 2. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE LITERACY MISSION AUTHORITY, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT LITERACY MISSION, VAYASKARAKUNNU, KOTTAYAM-686 001, (PRESIDENT, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 30193 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as an Assistant Project Co-ordinator on contract basis under the District Literacy Mission, Kottayam. By Ext.P1 order, he was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. According to the petitioner, thereupon he moved Ext.P3 before the 3rd respondent and by Ext.P4 order, the 3rd respondent ordered to keep disciplinary action against the petitioner in abeyance. It is stated that despite this, by Ext.P5, the 2nd respondent reinstated the petitioner with a warning. 2. In this writ petition, his main grievance is against Ext.P6, which according to the petitioner was issued soon after Ext.P5, transferring and posting him to Kannur. There is a further prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to disburse subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period he was kept under suspension and disburse the arrears. 3. In so far as Ext.P6, the order of transfer is concerned, prima facie, it would appear that the said order has been issued in the exigencies of service. On the pleadings, I am not in a position WPC 30193/09 :2 : to find any arbitrariness or malafide in the issuance of Ext.P6, and if that be so, this Court will not be justified in interfering with Ext.P6 in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the same time, if the petitioner has any complaint, necessarily he should have a remedy. Such remedy, he should seek before the 3rd respondent, who issued Ext.P4. Therefore, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to make a representation against Ext.P6 to the 3rd respondent, in which event the 3rd respondent shall consider the grievances and pass orders in accordance with law. 5. In so far as the other grievance of the petitioner regarding non payment of the subsistence allowance is concerned, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall, on the production of a copy of this judgment, examine his claim and pass appropriate orders in that regard as well without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp