IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20671 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.T.SIVANKUTTY, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. SECTION, ARYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCED DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GP SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20671/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department now under orders of deployment to the LSG Department in Aryad Grama Panchayat. By Ext.P1 order, Government issued guidelines in the matter of creation of Engineering Cadre for Local Self Government Department. Deployment of persons to the LSG Department from the Public Works Department was inter alia, after obtaining option from the willing employees and among the optees, list was to be prepared and if there were persons, who were not willing to give options, then deployment as among the non optees will be on the basis of seniority. Petitioner expressed his willingness and submitted his option opting LSG Department, as per Ext.P3, on 31.12.2007. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the seniority position in the new service and that is why he had submitted an option. By Ext.P5 order passed by the Chief Engineer, LSGD, Thiruvananthapuram, on 18.6.2008, Petitioner among W.P.(C).20671/2008 2 several others, has been deployed to the LSGD Section. Petitioner who was then working at Vellamunda in Wayanad District has been deployed and posted in Mannamcherry in Aryad Block Panchayat. According to the petitioner, even before Ext.P5 was issued, he had withdrawn the option earlier given by him vide Ext.P4 dated 10.6.2008. Petitioner submits that notwithstanding the withdrawal of option, he is included in the list of deployment. Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Chief Engineer to consider Ext.P4 which is styled as withdrawal of option already submitted by the petitioner. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader. 3. If the option already submitted by the petitioner as per Ext.P3 had been accepted, then the expost fact of withdrawal may not really help the petitioner. But if Ext.P4 had reached the authority concerned, before a W.P.(C).20671/2008 3 decision had been taken in the matter of deployment, then the authority should have considered the application for withdrawal of option and proceeded to draw the list of persons to be deployed to the LSG Department. 4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P4. If the third respondent finds that a decision, to include the petitioner in the list of persons willing for deployment to the LSG Department, was not taken prior to the date of Ext.P4, then the application for withdrawal of option as such shall be considered on merits and suitable communication may be sent by the third respondent to the fourth respondent. This shall be done notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has now been deployed pursuant to Ext.P5. 5. If the list of optees, willing to be deployed to the LSG Department had already been drawn up by the third W.P.(C).20671/2008 4 respondent by the time he received a copy of Ext.P4, then the fact that the petitioner had submitted an application for withdrawal as Ext.P4 on 10.6.2008 need not stand in the way of deployment of the petitioner as per Ext.P5. Keeping this in mind, the petitioner may be given a reply to Ext.P4 by the fourth respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs