IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18126 of 2008(G) PETITIONER: -------------------- KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADUTHURUTHY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.VIJAYAN. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE NARAYANPARAMBIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THRESSIAMMA C.K., THACHERIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- WP(C).NO. 18126 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat and apparently aggrieved by Ext.P3 order by which the third respondent herein has been retained at Anganvadi Centre No.10. Reference is made to Ext.P2 judgment, which is in a writ petition filed by the third respondent challenging her transfer from Anganvadi Centre No.10 to Anganvadi Centre No.163. The third respondent herein and the Anganvadi helper were both transferred to different stations from Anganvadi Centre No.10. The reason was a quarrel between them. In Ext.P2 judgment I had asked the first respondent therein the District Officer to consider whether the petitioner therein could be accommodated at a station nearer to Anganvadi Centre No.10, taking note of the contention of the petitioner therein that the transfer requires a travel of more than 20 kms. The claim of the petitioner was directed to be considered by this court. By an obvious mistake the third respondent herein was again sought to WPC.18126 /2008 2 be posted at Anganvadi Centre No.10. This resulted in several complaints. One of which is Ext.P4. The Panchayat which provides for the material infrastructure for running the Anganvadi centre has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order for the reason that if it is implemented, it would result in the third respondent continuing at Anganvadi Centre 10. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent and it is affirmed that there were several complaints against the third respondent. Be that as it may, it is stated that there is a vacancy at Anganvadi Centre No.161 and the third respondent is prepared to join at Anganvadi No.161. This submission is recorded. The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders thereon. This shall be done without reference to Ext.P3, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ WPC.18126 /2008 3