IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27131 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.M.AISHA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.P.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.R.SRINATH SRI.M.M.LALBIND SRI.VIPIN VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. STATE PLANNING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 3. SMT.T.E.SANTHI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. 4. SMT.P.J.AMINA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27131/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 235/11/PLG. DTD. 29.7.2011. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 8.7.2011. P3:- COPY OF THE FINAL GRADATION LIST DTD. 1.3.2009. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.8.2011 IN WPC. 20938/11. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 16.8.2011. P6:- COPY OF THE GO(RT) 282/2011/PLG DTD. 14.9.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.27131 of 2011-N. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order by which her request for reconsideration of an order promoting and posting her to Ernakulam from Thiruvananthapuram where she was working, is under challenge. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Director, State Planning Board, she was promoted to the post of Deputy Director and posted to the District Planning Office, Ernakulam, as per Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1 order of promotion, three other persons have also been promoted. However, they have been retained at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, she is a person who has only less than two years to retire from service and therefore she is entitled to be retained at Thiruvananthapuram in preference to the others. For the above reason, the WP(C).No.27131/2011-N. 2 petitioner had challenged Ext.P1 by filing WP(C). No.20938/2011 against the same. After consideration of the contentions raised therein, this Court had disposed of the same by Ext.P4 judgment directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the first respondent and further directing the first respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of her representation. Accordingly, the matter has been considered by the first respondent and Ext.P6 order has been issued. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P6 order has not considered the grievances of the petitioner in the proper perspective. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the other promotees have been retained at Thiruvananthapuram on compassionate grounds. If so, the petitioner claims that she should also been retained at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the counsel, the 4th respondent whose case has been considered in paragraph 5 WP(C).No.27131/2011-N. 3 of Ext.P6 shows that she has been retained at her present place of posting only for the personal reason that she has to look after her aged mother-in-law who is under treatment for neurological and psychic problems. By the same reasoning, the petitioner claims preference on the ground that she is a diabetic patient and has to look after her husband who is aged more than 65 years. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 may be set aside. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. It is clear from Ext.P6 that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and that the comparative hardships of the other promotees have been taken into account while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The first respondent has found that there were compelling special circumstances that justified their retention at their present place of posting and the only small ground in favour of the petitioner is the fact that she is to retire from service in less than two years time. WP(C).No.27131/2011-N. 4 However, considering the other aspects of the matter, the first respondent has decided that the petitioner should be moved out of Thiruvananthapuram. 5. Another aspect that has to be taken into account is the fact that the petitioner has been promoted to a higher post and posted to Ernakulam. She has no objection to the promotion that has been granted and the objection is only to her transfer to Ernakulam. Since she has been promoted to a higher post, the grounds for interference with such an order is considerably limited. The first respondent has considered the claim of the petitioner in a proper manner in Ext.P6. I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P6. In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-