IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27682 of 2011(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- REKHA.S.L., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRA MOHANAN, REKHA NIVAS, KOTTAMKARA, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.MILTON SMT.LIZA P.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT (LSGD), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.27682/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1 : COPY OF THE GO (P) NO.186/2000/LSGD DATED 4.7.2000. EXHIBIT-P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) 11637/2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXHIBIT-P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/12950/2010 DATED 26.02.2011 AND LIST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.11330 OF 2011 (M) DATED 7TH APRIL 2011 IN THE HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT-P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.7.2011 RECEIVED TO THE PETITIONER ON 4.8.2011. EXHIBIT-P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2011 BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT-P8 : COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 27682 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a person who is presently working as an Assistant Engineer in the Pattazhy Grama Panchayath in the Local Self Government Department. She entered service as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department. She had been deployed to the Local Self Government Department. Earlier, persons like the petitioner were granted an option to continue in the Local Self Government Department or to go back to their parent department. At that time the petitioner had expressed her unwillingness to continue in the Local Self Government Department. At present, steps are under way to form a separate Local Self Government Engineering Cadre. The petitioner seeks permission to continue in the said new cadre. Though she had requested the authorities to permit her to continue in the Local Self Government Service, the request has been turned down. 2. The petitioner had filed WP(C) 11330/2011 earlier, for a direction to the second respondent to consider her request. Accordingly as per Ext.P5 judgment a direction was issued. She WPC 27682/2011 2 was also permitted to continue in the Local Self Government service, until her representation was disposed of. Accordingly her representation has been considered and disposed of by Ext.P6 order. As per Ext.P6 order, the petitioner's request has been rejected. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there are a number of other Assistant Engineers who have been retained in the Local Self Government service while the petitioner has not been permitted to continue. Being aggrieved by Ext.P6, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P7, a further representation seeking reconsideration of Ext.P6. The petitioner seeks the issue of a direction to consider Ext.P7. 4. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also. 5. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the request of the petitioner has been rejected for very valid and tenable reasons. It is stated in Ext.P6 that request of the petitioner is against the Government Orders governing the formation of the new Local Self Government Engineering Cadre. A permission to the petitioner to continue in the said new service would affect the seniority of the others who are presently there. Similar requests from others would also come, if the petitioner's claim is allowed. Therefore, the claim WPC 27682/2011 3 of the petitioner has been rejected. I do not find any grounds to disagree with the reasons stated in Ext.P6. However, since Ext.P8 is pending consideration of the fourth respondent, I am of opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the same to be considered. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the fourth respondent to consider the request of the petitioner set out in Ext.P8 representation in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 27682/2011 4