IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35352 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJESH DAS, U.D.CLERK KAINAKARY GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE KAINAKARY, ALAPPUZHA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECRETARAIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT ALAPPUZHA. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.35352 of 2009 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 21st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk presently working in the Kainakary Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, he is a member of the Kerala Civil Service Shuttle Badminton Team and is also a member of the Double Team, which is the runner up of Masters in the Kerala State Badminton Championship. It is stated that there is no indoor-stadium anywhere in the Kainakary Grama Panchayat, and there is also a vacancy in the Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, Alappuzha, he should be posted to that vacancy. 2. Referring to Ext.P10, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Ext.P10 will go to show that though Shri.Subhashchandra Bose was transferred from the Office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat, no substitute was posted to that Office. The learned counsel therefore submits that his claim, to be posted to that vacancy, should be considered. WP(C) No.35352/2009 -2- 3. The learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Government Pleader, the aforesaid vacancy indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a vacancy arisen on account of the promotion of a LDC as UDC and his transfer. It is stated that since the petitioner is a UDC, he cannot be accommodated to that vacancy. It is also pointed out that there is no vacancy at Alappuzha to accommodate the petitioner. Further, according to the learned Government Pleader, Kainakary is only 10 K.M. away from Alappuzha, and therefore, there is no merit in the inconvenience pointed out. 4. The case of the petitioner is that a vacancy, as pointed out above, is available at Alappuzha. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, the correctness of which cannot be doubted, the vacancy is that of a LDC, since the petitioner is a UDC, he cannot be posted to that vacancy. Therefore, at present, there is no material to show that there is any vacancy at Alappuzha to which the petitioner can be posted. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in issuing direction as sought for. 5. However, if as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P12 WP(C) No.35352/2009 -3- representation has been received, depending upon the availability of vacancy and other exigencies of service, it will be open to the 3rd respondent to consider the said representation. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg