IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22432 of 2010(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PREETHAMOL. K., UPPER DIVISION CLERK, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KALAMASSERY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N. SANTHA, SRI.K.A. BALAN, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.ANAND S.A. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22432 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner states that since 13.11.2008, she is working as UDC in the Kalamasserry Municipal Office. As per Ext.P1, petitioner applied for a general transfer indicating Cherthala, Kochi and Alappuzha as the station of her choice for posting. In Ext.P2 draft list published, her name was included at serial No.127 proposing to post her at Cherthala. According to the petitioner, she was proposed to be accommodated in the vacancy created by serial No.23 in Ext.P2. 2. However, when Ext.P3 final list was published, both the petitioner and the person included at serial No.23 in Ext.P2 draft list were omitted. Aggrieved by this, Ext.P4(a) appeal was filed before the first respondent. Petitioner now submits that by Ext.P5 many of her juniors have been posted at the stations opted by her, including at the Cochin Corporation Office. It is pointed out that there is one more vacancy available in Cochin Corporation Office to which she could be accommodated. WPC No.22432/2010 2 2. Irrespective of the aforesaid contentions raised in the writ petition, having regard to the pendency of the statutory appeal filed as per Ext.P4(a), I do not think that this Court should examine the merits of the contentions raised. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on P4(a) appeal. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. It is also directed that in the meanwhile, if a vacancy of UDC is available in the office of Cochin Corporation, it shall not be filled up without considering the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce copies of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.22432/2010 3 WPC No.22432/2010 4