IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21268 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LATHAKUMARY G.N., II GRADE OVERSEER, N.H.BYEPASS SUB DIVISION, KOVALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.(ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.21268 of 2010 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was initially advised and appointed in the Education Department and subsequently got herself advised and appointed in the Public Works Department as Overseer Gr.-II by Ext.P2 order. Consequent on the formation of LSGD, by Ext.P3 order dated 18/03/2010, 78 Overseers were deployed to LSGD and the petitioner was included at Serial No.74. 2. Ext.P3 order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.13160/2010. By Ext.P6 judgment dated 20/04/2010, this Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the petitioner was given liberty to file a representation to the Secretary to Government regarding the station to which she was posted. Taking advantage of the liberty thus granted, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation, in which the request made was to retain her in the PWD itself. That representation was rightly rejected by Ext.P8 order dated 03/07/2010. It is challenging Ext.P8, this writ petition has WP(C) No.21268/2010 -2- been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P9 interim order dated 25/05/2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.778/2010 & connected cases. Reference is also made to Ext.P10 order, in which Ext.P3 order in respect of one of the Overseers was cancelled. 4. First of all, deployment of Overseers by Ext.P3 stands upheld by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment and the only liberty that was given by this Court was to make a representation regarding the station to which the petitioner was posted. However, Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner was for retaining her in PWD, which was clearly impermissible having regard to the findings of this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. Therefore, rejection of Ext.P7 as per Ext.P8 order cannot be faulted. 5. Insofar as Ext.P9 interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.778/2010 & connected case is concerned, firstly, that is not an interim order passed in Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said order. Secondly, even in that interim order, the WP(C) No.21268/2010 -3- Division Bench has not interfered with the deployment as such, but only directed that consequential vacancy in the PWD shall be filled up. Therefore, Ext.P9 order does not give rescue to the petitioner to impugne Ext.P8. 6. Insofar as Ext.P10 order is concerned, a reading of this order shows that the beneficiary of that order was a party to the SLP mentioned therein, and that, in view of the status quo order passed by the Apex Court, the said order cancelling Ext.P3 was passed. From the very nature of the order itself, it is obvious that the benefit of Ext.P10 order will enure only to the person mentioned in Ext.P10 and not to anybody else. For these reasons, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg