IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14309 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- M.P.SASIPAL,NIGHT WATCHMAN, EXTENTION TRAINING CENTRE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANNUTHY,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL),RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. 2. SRI.R.ASOKAN,PRINCIPAL, EXTENTION TRAINING CENTRE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANNUTHY,THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 14309 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order passed by the 1st respondent in which he has been transferred from Mannuthy ETC wherein he was working as Night Watcher and posted as Peon in the Mullssery Block. Apparently, no person is posted in the ETC at Mannurthy in the place of petitioner. 2. Petitioner submits that his transfer is the outcome of Exhibit P2 complaint submitted before the Commissioner. Petitioner further submits that taking note of the fact that he is rendering services as a Night Watcher he had enrolled himself in the Law College at Thrissur for prosecuting the LLB course. This was after obtaining sanction as per Exhibit P1. But now, on account of the transfer effected under Exhibit P4, he will be prevented from prosecuting his studies. 3. There is force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. May be the petitioner needs to be transferred out of Mannuthy. But, there is no reason why he W.P ( C) No. 14309 of 2008 2 should be posted as Peon in such a manner that he is not in a position to prosecute his studies. The impact of Exhibit P2 also cannot be ignored. In my view, the petitioner's grievance requires redressal at the hands of the Director. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to move a representation before the Commissioner . If it is so done within a period of two weeks from today, it shall be seriously considered by the Commissioner and appropriate remedial measures should be taken and orders in that regard shall be passed by the Commissioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear that this facility will not stand in the way of disciplinary action being taken as mentioned in Exhibit P4 if it is otherwise warranted or justified. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 14309 of 2008 2