IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20025 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SASIKALA, DISTRICT STATIONERY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT SIVANJALI, T.C.19/1412 (6) CHANDRA GARDENS, THAMALAM, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. S.JAYALEKSHMI, INSPECTOR OF STATIONERY, OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R3 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.20025/2008-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11 order by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8 order of transfer was rejected by a single line order. 2. The petitioner is working as District Stationery Officer, Pathanamthitta. By Ext.P2, she submitted a representation to accommodate her in an open vacancy likely to arise in the head quarters consequent to retirement of an incumbent. This was followed by Exts.P3 and P4 representations. But the petitioner could not get any accommodation in that vacancy. Against another vacancy which was likely to arise on 01/03/2008 she filed Ext.P6 representation before the first respondent followed by Ext.P7 before the second respondent. By Ext.P8, the third respondent was accommodated in the said vacancy. Again the petitioner approached the Government by filing Ext.P10. The same is rejected by Ext.P11 without going into the merits, obviously. 3. Since, the Government had to address the dispute between the parties, the matter should have been considered in detail. But what is stated in Ext.P11 is that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as there W.P.(C) No.20025/2008 -:2:- is no vacancy. But going by the appeal filed by the petitioner, she was aggrieved by Ext.P8 order passed by the Stationery Controller, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, Ext.P11 is quashed. The first respondent will re-hear the appeal with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and pass appropriate orders on its merits within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms