IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 571 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21237/2009 Dated 27/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.I.S.F. HQ, 13 CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, CIAL, NEDUMBASSERRY,KOCHI-683111. 3. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI-683501. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001. BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. MARYMOL.T.P., W/O. SAMSON.K.SAMUEL, LADY ASI/CLK, NO.924390063, C.I.S.F. UNIT, FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL-683501, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAMSON K.SAMUEL, INSPECTOR/EXE, CISF UNIT, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER), COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED, NEDUMBASSERRY, KOCHI-683111. BY AD.SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.A.No.571 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Ravindran. J. This writ appeal arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P(C)No.21237 of 2009. The appellants are the respondents therein. By the judgment impugned in this writ appeal, the learned single Judge interfered with the transfer of the respondents/writ petitioners from Cochin to Arakonam on the ground that it is not an order of transfer which can be sustained for the reason that personnel of the CISF can be sent to the National Disaster Response Force only by deputation and not by transfer. 2. When the writ appeal came up for hearing today Sri.James Koshy, learned counsel took notice on behalf of the respondents. He submitted that though the impugned order has been interfered with, later the second petitioner, who is the husband of the first petitioner, has been transferred to Delhi and that the appellants have taken a decision to retain the first petitioner in Cochin. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the subsequent events and the fact that the second petitioner has not chosen to challenge his transfer to Delhi the writ petition has practically become infructuous. W.A.No.571 of 2010 -:2:- 3. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submitted that the first respondent/first petitioner will be retained at Cochin during the current academic year and that she will be transferred out, if required, only during the next academic year. In the light of the aforesaid developments and the submissions made at the Bar we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for us to consider the writ appeal on the merits. It is accordingly disposed of recording the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the first respondent/first petitioner will not be transferred out during the current academic year. J.CHELAMESWAR, Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.A.No.571 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 30th June, 2010