IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 8247 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJESH KUMAR.S, PEON, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ELECTRONICS SERVICING SECTION (RURAL), PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA SMT.VINITHA B. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8247 of 2010 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy certificate dated 15.10.1996. Ext.P2 :- Copy of the application dated 9.12.2008 of the petitioner along with proforma and covering letter dated 6.1.2009 of the Executive Engineer. Ext.P3 :- Copy of the letter No.ED3/20717/2007/T.Edn Dept dated 19-8-2009. Ext.P4 :- Copy order No.ED3/356/09/Tech.Edn.Dept.dated 14.5.2009. Ext.P5 :- Copy of the order No.EB3/13213 dated 3-7-09 of the respondent. Ext.P6 :- Copy of the application dated 16.9.2009 of the petitioner. Ext.P6(a) :- Copy of the covering letter dated 22.9.2009 of the Executive Engineer. Ext.P7 :- Copy of the letter No.ED3/20717/07/Tech. Edn. Dept. dated 30.11.2009. Ext.P8 :- Copy of the judgment in W.P.(C) 23310/2008. Ext.P9 :- Copy of the application dated 18.1.2010 under the Right to Information Act. Ext.P9(a) :- Copy of the reply of the Public Information Officer dated 1.2.2010. Respondent's Exhibits :- Ext.R1(a) :- Copy of the order No.13092/L3/09/H.Edn. Dated 19.3.2010. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.8247 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner after passing THSLC and Diploma in Mechanical Engineering, was appointed as Night Watchman in the Public Works Department and is working in Thiruvananthapuram since 21.8.2007. By Ext.P2 application dated 9.12.2008, petitioner applied for inter- departmental transfer to the Technical Education Department. That application made to the Executive Engineer was forwarded to the respondent on 6.1.2009. Respondent, however rejected the application by Ext.P3 letter dated 19.8.2009 assigning to administrative reasons. In the mean time, with effect from 26.6.2009, petitioner was posted as Peon in the Office of the Assistant Engineer. W.P.(C) No.8247 of 2010 -: 2 :- Subsequently, petitioner again submitted Ext.P6 application dated 16.9.2009 for inter-departmental transfer which again was rejected by Ext.P7 order dated 30.11.2009. 2. According to the petitioner, Exts.P4 and P5 shows that there were vacancies of Peon in the Directorate of Technical Education and therefore, rejection of his request for inter-departmental transfer as per Exts.P3 and P7 was erroneous. It was in the above circumstances that this writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P3 and P7. 3. Main contention raised in the counter affidavit is that there is a live ranked list of the PSC available in the Directorate of Technical Education for making appointments of the last grade servants and therefore if inter-departmental transfer sought for by the petitioner is allowed, that will cause prejudice to the rank holders. 4. Referring to Ext.P8 judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since appointment of last grade servants is made in various departments from a W.P.(C) No.8247 of 2010 -: 3 :- common ranked list, even if the request of the petitioner is considered, there will be a resultant vacancy in the PWD and therefore the case of the respondent that candidates included in the ranked list will be prejudiced is erroneous. 5. Having gone through Ext.P8 judgment I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is also seen that as per Rule 17(d) of the Last Grade Service Special Rules, request as sought for by the petitioner is permissible subject to the mutual consent of the Appointing Authorities and availability of vacancies. Since according to the petitioner, Exts.P4, P5, P9 and P10 show the existence of vacancies in the Directorate of Technical Education under the respondent and in the light of Ext.P8 judgment rendered by this Court, I feel the request of the petitioner made as per Exts.P2 and P6 should be reconsidered by the respondent. 6. In order to enable the respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner, I quash Exts.P3 and P7 and W.P.(C) No.8247 of 2010 -: 4 :- direct him to reconsider Exts.P2 and P6 in the light of Rule 17(d) of the Special Rules and also duly adverting Ext.P8 judgment and other relevant Government Orders on the subject. Orders in this respect shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of Ext.P8 judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt