IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14073 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.C.REGHU, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 42 YEARS, ELECTRICIAN GRADE-I, GOVERNMENT PRESS, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT MADASSERY HOUSE, PUTHIYEDAM, PARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.C.A.CHACKO, SMT.C.M.CHARISMA, MR.N.A.SHAFEEK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESS, ERNAKULAM. 4. C.K.RAJESH, ELECTRICIAN GRADE-I, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R4 BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.M.SAJJAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.14073/2009-D: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES DTD. 10/09/02 ISSUED BY R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 05/05/09 MADE BEFORE THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 07/02/2009. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 9585/09/E6 OF THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING DTD. 27/05/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14073 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated 12th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard Sri C.A.Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 2. This writ petition was presented on 21.5.2009 on the apprehension that the petitioner will be transferred to Thiruvananthapuram and the fourth respondent posted in his place at Ernakulam. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submits that till date orders have not been passed transferring the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said statement. Such being the situation, I am of the opinion that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to maintain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to challenge the order of transfer as and when it is passed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS