IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30612 of 2008(T) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. N.ROBIN SELVARAJ, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SHRI.K.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY, DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHRI.R.AJITH, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KESAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (A)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (A)DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No. 30612 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 17th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Law graduate working as Upper Division Clerk in the Directorate of Mining and Geology. This is the third writ petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action taken by the Director to post him in T-3 Section. Being a Law graduate, the petitioner was placed in charge of M-2 Section in the Directorate of Mining and Geology which was handling a large number of writ petitions and other cases in which the Director of Mining and Geology Department was a party. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a Law graduate, the Director of Mining and Geology moved the Government to upgrade the post of Upper Division Clerk held by him as Legal Assistant. By Ext.P2 order passed on 21.5.2007, while turning down the said request the Government directed that as the petitioner is a Law graduate, he can be posted as Upper Division Clerk in the Section/Wing looking after licensing. Thus the petitioner continued to be in M-2 Section. Later by Ext.P3 order dated 15.5.2008, the Director of Mining and Geology re-arranged the work among Section Clerks and posted the petitioner in T-3 Section. The second respondent was posted in the M-2 Section in the petitioner's place. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.15640 of 2008. By Ext.P5 judgment delivered on 27.5.2008, this Court W.P.(C)30612/2008 2 directed that if the petitioner files a representation before the State Government within two weeks therefrom, the Government shall consider the same and pass orders thereon within another 4 weeks thereafter. As directed in Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 9.6.2008 followed by Ext.P7 representation dated 28.6.2008. Thereupon the Government considered the said request and by Ext.P8 order passed on 7.7.2008, the Government held that the petitioner's request cannot be entertained. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 by filing W.P.(C) No.21398 of 2008. Ext.P9 judgment delivered on 7.8.2008, I allowed the writ petition quashing Ext.P8 and directed the State Government to consider whether having regard to the large number of litigations in which the Department of Mining and Geology is a party, it is not desirable to have a person with Law degree in the M-2 Section, if there is no impediment to post such a person in that Section. In Ext.P9 judgment I had held that no employee can claim a vested right to be posted in a particular section and that the rearrangement of work in any office is a matter within the exclusive domain of the Head of the Department or the Head of Office. 3. As directed in Ext.P9, the State Government re-considered the entire matter and issued Ext.P11 order on 24.9.2008 rejecting the petitioner's request. Ext.P11 is under challenge in W.P.(C)30612/2008 3 this petition. 4. I have heard Sri.T.Ramaprasad Unni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that reasons which were not set out when Ext.P8 was passed have now been set out in Ext.P9 and that the Government have acted on extraneous considerations when it passed Ext.P11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Ext.P11 notices that though the petitioner was in M-2 Section for the past 7 years, there have been latches on his part in handling files and that by retaining the petitioner in M-2 Section for the past several years, the quality or turn over of work has not improved. It is further stated that a legal cell has been constituted in the Directorate headed by a Geologist having qualification in Law and that the legal cell can be effectively look after the Court cases in which the department is involved. The Government have, on a detailed consideration of various aspects held that the claim made by the petitioner for continued posting in M-2 Section cannot be acceded to. 5. In my considered opinion, the challenge to Ext.P11 is without merit. The Government have in Ext.P11 noticed that the posting of the petitioner in M-2 Section has not yielded any extra advantage either in the quality or turn over of the work. Ext.P1 W.P.(C)30612/2008 4 refers to dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in taking timely action in various matters including in the preparation of statement of facts for filing counter affidavits in 57 cases pending in this Court. The Government have also noticed that a legal cell has been constituted to look after the large number of cases in which the department is involved. As held by me in Ext.P9 judgment, the rearrangement of work in any office is a matter within the exclusive domain of the Head of Office or the Head of the Department and that no employee can claim a vested right to be posted in a particular section. The petitioner has been in the M-2 Section for nearly 7 years. If the authorities thought that he should be shifted to another section, he cannot legitimately complain about it. The petitioner is bound to work in whichever Section he is posted and if he refuses to do so, it will be open to the Head of Office/Appointing Authority to initiate action against him for such refusal. In my considered opinion, the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/