IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16081 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.MADHUKUMAR, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD, KONNI/PARAKODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LSGD DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. LEKHA C.S., ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD, KANJIKUZHI/ARAYAD BLOCK PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).16081/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer now in the Local Self Government Department. In April 2009, though he was placed under suspension, by Ext.P3 order he was reinstated and was posted in Parakode Block Panchayat. Now by Ext.P5 order, petitioner is transferred and posted to Pandalam/Kulanada Block Panchayat and in his place the 4th respondent is posted. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order promoting Assistant Engineer as Assistant Executive Engineer itself shows that the 4th respondent was the junior most and evidently Ext.P5 has been issued transferring the petitioner only to accommodate the 4th respondent. 2. Ext.P5 appears to be a general order of transfer and Ext.P5 does not indicate that the petitioner has been transferred only to accommodate the 4th respondent. Apart from the plea in this respect, petitioner is unable to show that this order of transfer is vitiated for any other valid reason. W.P.(C).16081/10 2 3. Be that as it may, having regard to the case of the petitioner that there are vacancies in the nearby places where the 4th respondent can be accommodated, without disturbing the petitioner, I feel this is a matter essentially for the 1st respondent to consider. 4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the 1st respondent requesting modification of Ext.P4 in which event it is directed that the same shall be considered and orders be passed thereon, considering the grievance of the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs