IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9765 of 2008(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- U.Y.JOHN, TECHNICAL OFFICER [CIVIL], KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHII P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI P.O., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. P.P.SUNNY, TECHNICAL OFFICER, (ELECTRICAL), KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI.P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. S.M. PREM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 9765 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 25th March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as a Technical Officer (Civil) in the 1st respondent Institute. He is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order by which the Director has relieved him of his responsibilities of additional charge of Engineer and handed over the same to the 2nd respondent. Petitioner submits that he is a graduate in Civil Engineering. Second respondent is only a Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering. Taking note of the vacancy in the post of Civil Engineer, petitioner was given the charge of the same. When there was a proposal for appointment to the post of Civil Engineer by direct recruitment, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C)35235 of 2007. The writ petition was dismissed. The present order Exhibit P4 directing the petitioner to hand over charge of Civil Engineer is only a counter-blast to the writ petition filed by the petitioner, it is contended. 2. Learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, on instruction, submits that the petitioner has to be relieved of the W.P ( C) No. 9765 of 2008 2 charge of Civil Engineer. Apparently, he had been asked to supervise the project in Nilambur and certain lapses were detected. It seems that a memo of charges has also been issued to the petitioner. There is no personal animosity behind Exhibit P4. 3. Exhibit P4 is only a pure and simple change of arrangement, issued in the normal course of business carried on by the 1st respondent. Change of arrangement is not governed by any statutory provisions or any other subordinate service rules having binding force. In that view of the matter, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Exhibit P4 as such. But I have taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that Exhibit P4 is purely consequential upon a re -allocation of duties on administrative exigencies and will not be treated as a reflection on the petitioner's competence on integrity. Submission is recorded. The writ petition is closed subject to the above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 9765 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 W.P ( C) No. 9765 of 2008 2 ORDER 25th May, 2007 Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.