IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19393 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REHIANATH, AGED 47, W/O.LATE SAINALABDEEN, PARADISE, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKAVU, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. CHINNAMMA, SUPERVISOR, I.C.D.S. LALAM BLOCK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 575. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).19393/2010 ....................... Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an ICDS Supervisor. Earlier she was transferred from Karunagappally to Lalam Block, Meenachil Taluk. That transfer was challenged before this Court which resulted in Ext.P7 judgment wherein this Court directed the Government to consider the representation made by the petitioner for retention at Karunagappally. Accordingly her claim was considered and the Government issued Ext.P8 order. Paragraph 9 and 10 of Ext.P8 reads as follows. “It is also evident that the petitioner was relieved from ICDS project Karunagappally on the A.N of 4.5.2010, ie, before the issuance of the interim order of the Honourable High Court and the substitute has already joined in the Project. In the circumstances, request of the petitioner contained in the representation read as 2nd paper above to cancel the order transferring her to ICDS Lalam in Kottayam issued as per the 1st paper above and to retain her at ICDS, Karunagappally, is hereby rejected and W.P.(C).19393/10 2 orders issued accordingly. Further, the Director of Social Welfare is directed to accommodate her in the next arising vacancy in Kollam District considering that she is a widow.” 2. In pursuance to Ext.P8, Director of Social Welfare has issued Ext.P9 directing the petitioner to report at Lalam ICDS. It is on receipt of this order this writ petition is filed. Petitioner submits referring to Ext.P10, that there is no vacancy at Lalam to accommodate her. 3. As already seen, petitioner's claim for retention at Karunagappally was considered by the Government and by Ext.P8, Director of Social Welfare was directed to accommodate her in the next arising vacancy in Kollam District. At present, even according to the petitioner, there is no vacancy in Kollam District. In such situation, no fault can be found on the part of the Director of Social Welfare in having asked the petitioner to report at Lalam. W.P.(C).19393/10 3 4. Insofar as Ext.P10 is concerned, that order indicates cancellation of transfer of ICDS Supervisor at Lalam. But however, the petitioner has been ordered to report at Lalam as per Ext.P9. Therefore, it is for the authorities to ensure that a post is available at Lalam for the petitioner to take charge. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs