IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15655 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.K.AJITHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.ANOOP KUMAR, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT,O/O.THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT-1, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT VALAPPIL HOUSE,VENGLAM PO., KOZHIKODE673013. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CHIEF ENGINEER, L.S.G.D.,TRIVANDRUM 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRTATION, TRIVANDRUM 3. P.D.RAJAN, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT, O/O.T HE CHIEF ENGINREER,IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION TRIVANDRUM 4. MANOJ KUMAR, CONFIDENTIAL ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 15655 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th May, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P4 order of deployment passed by the Chief Engineer by which she, working in the office of the Chief Engineer, Project I in Kozhikode, has been deployed to the Local Self Government (North Circle), Kozhikode in the existing vacancy. Petitioner submits that the order of deployment contravenes the Government order which regulates the deployment of Engineers from the Public Works Department to the Local Self Government Department. It is pointed out that going by Exhibit P1, the 3rd respondent is treated as senior to the petitioner. But going by the date of entry in the service it is clear that the petitioner should be treated as senior to the 3rd respondent and if that be so, the 3rd respondent who is junior to the petitioner must have been deployed ahead of the petitioner, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In my view, this position is to be considered by the Chief Engineer in the first instance. If the objection is found to W.P ( C) No. 15655 of 2008 2 be correct then the Chief Engineer will have to revise the order of deployment to bring it in conformity with Government Order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibits P2 and P5, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the objections raised by the petitioner is found to be correct then the Chief Engineer shall pass revised orders of deployment, at the earliest. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 15655 of 2008 2