IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17828 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.J.CHACKO, S/O.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS, MALAMPARACKAL HOUSE, ERATTAYAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, (WORKING AS SPL. GRADE SECRETARY, NEMMARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. S.ARAVINDAKSHAN, SPL. GRADE SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17828 OF 2010 (C) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Special Grade Panchayat Secretary. He is a resident of Idukki District, and is presently posted in Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, a resident of Trivandrum district, is posted in Idukki District. 2. It is stated that in Ext.P1 draft list for transfer and postings, the petitioner was included at Sl.No.59 and was proposed to be posted at Kattappana and the 2nd respondent was included at Sl.No.5 with a proposal to post him at Balaramapuram. However, when Ext.P2 final list was published, both of them were excluded from the list. Complaining of the above, he has filed Ext.P3 appeal before the 1st respondent. 3. Although the petitioner has raised several contentions regarding the invalidity of Ext.P2 final list, still having regard to the pendency of Ext.P3, I feel that an examination on the merits of the claim urged is unnecessary. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal filed by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any WPC No. 17828/10 :2 : rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if any order on Ext.P3 is likely to be prejudicial to the 2nd respondent, the same shall be passed only with notice to the persons affected. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp