IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31845 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V. SANILKUMAR, ASSISTANT PROJECT OFFICER, I.T.D.P ATTAPPADI, AGALI.P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENTAL OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Govt. pleader Smt. Anu Sivaraman THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31845 OF 2009 (A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, the communication by which the 2nd respondent rejected Ext.P7. 3. Petitioner joined the Co-operative Department as LDC. Subsequently, while working as Assistant Registrar, by Ext.P1, petitioner was advised as BDO and was accordingly appointed in the Rural Development Department. At his request, by Ext.P2, petitioner was relieved from Co-operative Department. He handed over charge and Ext.P4 shows that he joined as BDO. 4. According to the petitioner, he retained lien in the Co- operative Department and is entitled to the benefit of Rule 8 of Part II KSR. Subsequently, petitioner submitted Ext.P6 seeking reappointment in the Co-operative Department and again reiterated his request by Ext.P7 representation. That was rejected by Ext.P8 stating that since he is eligible for confirmation in the Rural Development Department, his request cannot be considered. WPC.No. 31845/09 :2 : 5. Pursuant to the directions of this court petitioner has also filed supplementary evidence dated 6.12.2009, confirming that he was not confirmed in the Rural Development Department. 6. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that, even according to the 2nd respondent petitioner was only eligible for confirmation and it does not say that he was actually confirmed in the Rural Development Department. If that be so, Ext.P7 request made by the petitioner deserves consideration on merits. 7. Therefore, I quash Ext.P8 and directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7 and pass orders in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Needless to say that, if necessary, the first respondent shall place the proceedings before the 2nd respondent for appropriate orders. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ The words “2nd respondent” occurring in the second line of paragraph 2, first line of paragraph 6 and first line of paragraph 7 of the judgment dated 14/12/2009 in WP(c).No.31845/2009 are corrected as “4th WPC.No. 31845/09 :3 : respondent” and last sentence of the judgment is deleted as per order dated 24.02.2010 in I.A.Nos.2524 and 2534/2010 of WP(c).No.31845/09. Sd/- Registrar(Judicial)