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. 30268 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SANTHANDASAN C., S/O.CHANDRAN E.V., AGED 34 YEARS, SANTHI BHAVAN, EZHUVANKULAMBU, THEKKEPOTTA, PUTHUCODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, 678 687, WORKING AS SITE SUPERVISOR, NIRMITHI KENDRA, PALAKKAD, NOW TRANSFERRED TO KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, PALAKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER/FINANCIAL ADVISOR, KERALA STATE NIRMITHI KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 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. 30268 OF 2009 (C) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Site Supervisor working under the 1st respondent. While working at Palakkad, petitioner was granted no objection to join the Part Time Diploma Course at the Palakkad Poly Technic College evening batch. Accordingly, petitioner commenced his studies. Subsequently, by Ext.P2 order, he has been transferred to Aralam, Kannur. Immediately, thereafter petitioner has filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent requesting for his retention at Palakkad. Under cover of Ext.P3, the 2nd respondent has forwarded his representation to the 3rd respondent. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without examining the grievance or adverting to his complaint, the representation has been rejected. It is also his case that orders on the representation has not been communicated to him. Meanwhile, the petitioner has joined duties at Aralam as well. It is thereafter that this writ petition has been filed challenging his transfer. WPC 30268/09 :2 : 3. In these circumstances, I feel it is only appropriate that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a fresh representation before the 3rd respondent highlighting his grievances, and if such a representation is filed, the 3rd respondent should examine the matter with reference to the rules and also Ext.P1, the no objection certificate on the basis of which the petitioner joined the course. 4. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to the 3rd respondent highlighting his grievance, in which event, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of its receipt. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp