IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16860 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SABITHA.P., AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. S. KAMARAJ, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRADE-II, KULANADA BLOCK, KULANADA.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, KANAKA NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001. 3. HARIDAS.G., SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NILAMBUR BLOCK PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CHANDAKKUNNU.P.O.,-679329. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WP(C) 16860/2011) PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-9190/2010(1) DATED 1.6.2010. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER. EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER NO.EST.A3-9190/2011 (2) DATED 20.6.2011. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.6.2011 SUBMITTED AGAINT EXT.P3 BEFORE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 24.6.2011. SECOND RESPONDENT'S EXTS. ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 1280/2010. ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-25720/2010 DTD. 2.4.2011. ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-25720/2010(1) DATED 23.5.2011. lgk //TRUE COPY// C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 16860 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as Scheduled Caste Development Officer in Kulanada Block in Pathanamthitta District. While so, Kulanada Block Development office was abolished. In fact, according to the respondents, initially, even after abolition the personnel in Kulanada Block Office were permitted to continue in the said station itself on account of declaration of General Election to the State Assembly, and later, when it is found that some more time is required for staff pattern arrangements status quo was ordered to be continued till new offices start functioning consequent to the abolition of certain Block Development Offices including Kulanada Block Development Office. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that all such arrangements are now, completed. In fact, the petitioner was also given additional charge of Pandalam Block Development Office and allowed to continue in the said station itself. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P3 order to the extent it WPC.16860/2011 : 2 : orders the transfer of the petitioner to Parakkadavu Block Development Office in Ernakulam District. The 3rd respondent who was working as Scheduled Caste Development Officer in Nilampur Block Development office was transferred and posted as such at Pandalam Block Development Office. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. The contention of the petitioner is that the transfer was effected on the request of the 3rd respondent and only to accommodate him and the petitioner has not submitted any request for transfer. In fact she had requested only for a transfer either to Pandalam or Konni. Various other contentions have also been raised in this writ petition to assail Ext.P3 . 2. The respondents have filed a statement and thereafter an affidavit was also filed as directed by this Court. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Special Government Pleader. The contention of the second respondent is that while the petitioner is working as Scheduled Caste Development Officer WPC.16860/2011 : 3 : at Kulanada Block Development Office she was also holding the full additional charge of the Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Pandalam Block Development Office. Subsequently, as per Ext.P5 order dated 24.6.2011, the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Pathanamthitta relieved the petitioner from the additional charge of Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Pandalam to give effect Ext.P3 transfer order to the extent it orders transfer and posting of the 3rd respondent. As already noticed hereinbefore, the specific contention of the respondent authorities is that Kulanada Block Development Office was abolished. There is no material to produce in this writ petition to refute the said contention by the respondent authorities. Thus, it is obvious that the petitioner was relieved from the additional charge of Pandalam Block Development Office and then, taking into account the fact that Kulanada Block Development Office was abolished he was ordered to be transferred and posted to Parakkadavu Block Development Office in Ernakulam District. Though the petitioner has refuted the same in paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit no material has been produced before this WPC.16860/2011 : 4 : Court to arrive at a conclusion that the statement regarding the abolishment of Kulanada Block Development Office is incorrect and false. When this matter is taken up for admission, this Court passed an interim order staying transfer and posting of the petitioner to Parakkadavu Block Development Office in Ernakulam District and on the strength of the interim order the petitioner is continuing in the present station itself. However, the fact discernible from the rival contentions is that despite the fact that Kulanada Block Development Office was abolished the petitioner is continuing in Kulanada Block Development Office itself. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the staff pattern arrangements consequent to the abolition of the said office has already been completed. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that considering the grievances raised by the petitioner the feasibility of accommodating the petitioner in Mallappilly Block Development Office, as and when a vacancy arises there is being examined and till such time petitioner would be permitted to continue in Kulanada WPC.16860/2011 : 5 : Block Development Office. This is recorded. Recording the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge