IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 23500 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANEESHA V.S, ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD SPECIAL BUILDINGS SECTION NO.1 ERNAKULAM 682 024. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD SPECIAL SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM 682 024. 4. SMT. E.M.JUMAILATH, NH SECTION POOPARA-685619 SRI.K.A.JALEEL, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL-R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23500 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER DATED 27.8.2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.23500 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in Public works Department. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order. As per Ext.P1, she was transfered and posted to Poopara in Idukki District. The petitioner has raised various contentions including violation of transfer norms. I am of the view that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer, she has to raise such contentions before the first respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer a representation raising her claims and grievances against Ext.P1 before the first respondent within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such a representation within the stipulated period, the same shall be looked into by the first respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such a representation. Needless to say that before passing orders thereon, the fourth respondent shall also be put on notice. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO. 2 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 3