IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21284 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M. THANKAMANI, SUPERINTENDENT, OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE, SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, URBAN AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 21284 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE POSTING ORDER DATED 23/05/2009 WITH THE LIST. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/08/2009 SHOWING POSTING AT OTTAPALAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13/12/2010. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20/04/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/04/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 23/05/2011 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2010. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/07/2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2011. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/05/2011. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2011. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DATED 04/04/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 21284 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P8 order of transfer. The grievance of the petitioner is that her request for transfer to Palakkad Municipality was not considered by the respondents and ignoring her claim, one Sri.C.R.Venkiteswaran junior to the petitioner was given transfer to Palakkad Municipality. Even after raising such a contention, the petitioner has not chosen to make the said transferee a party to this Writ Petition. Without making the affected person in the party array, this Court cannot go into the merits of the contentions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as against draft transfer list dated 18.4.2011, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation carrying her objections and the same may be directed to be considered. However, in view of the subsequent developments and also taking into account the fact that the present challenge is against Ext.P8 order, such a direction would be purposeless. Against final transfer list viz., Ext.P10, no challenge was made by the petitioner and the challenge in this Writ Petition is against W.P.(C) NO.21284 OF 2011 2 Ext.P8 order of transfer. In the circumstances, liberty has been granted to the petitioner to raise grievances, if any, against Ext.P8 order before the first respondent. In case the petitioner is desirous to prefer such a representation, she may do so within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such a representation within the stipulated time, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of its receipt with notice to the transferees in Ext.P8. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.21284 OF 2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.21284 OF 2011 4