IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5735 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARI,FIRST GRADE OVERSEER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5735 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a First Grade Overseer in the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. She is aggrieved by Ext.P3 order dated 18.1.2010 whereby she was transferred and posted at Kanjangad Municipality in an open vacancy. It is evident from Ext.P3 that the petitioner was so transferred based on the recommendation of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. Its recommendation was to post the petitioner out of Thiruvananthapuram District and not to transfer back till the completion of the investigation of the case. Against Ext.P3 order of transfer, the petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. 2. The specific contention of the petitioner is that she was placed under transfer in connection with an incident that occurred on 15.3.2006 and led to the registration of crime as VC.No.3 of 2009 by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the petitioner, there is no reason to transfer her based on the pendency of the said proceedings all of a sudden that too, after allowing her to continue in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation itself for about four years. Ext.P3 does not reveal that the registration of VC.No.3 of W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 2 2009 is the reason for effecting the transfer. However, taking into account the aforesaid contentions and also the fact that in the case of the person who was placed under transfer along with the petitioner as per Ext.P3, this Court had earlier passed an order in W.P.(C).No.4800 of 2010 directing the first respondent therein to consider the representation filed by her and to pass orders thereon with a further direction to allow her to continue in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation till such a decision is taken, I am inclined to grant a similar relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that if the transfer ordered as per Ext.P3 is only in connection with the registration of VC.No.3 of 2009, then in the circumstances explained above, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in Thiruvananthapuram Corporation itself till a decision is taken on Ext.P4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.5735/2010 JUDGMENT 22nd February, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5735 of 2010 4