Disposed

V.S.Venugopal v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Kerala HC16 Jan 2008WP(C)/1915/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding unaccepted posting options of a Judicial First Class Clerk was disposed of, permitting the petitioner to seek a review of the relevant order to obtain a posting at his opted places.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to seek a review of Ext.P3 for posting at opted places; First Respondent directed to act on such representation within one month.

V.S.Venugopal Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1915 of 2008(C)

PETITIONER:

V.S.VENUGOPAL, L.D.CLERK (HG), OFFICE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, VAIKOM, (UNDER TRANSFER) RESIDING AT KURUPPATH, CHERUVALOOR P.O., KORATTY, CHALAKUDY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

AMBILYMOL.S., U.D.CLERK, COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, ETTUMANNOOR, NOW TRANSFERED TO COURT OF JFCM, VAIKOM.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.GIRI, J

¶18

W.P.(C).1915/2008

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner who is a resident at Koratty, was transferred from the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vaikom to the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Changanachery. Apparently, he had indicated that he would like a posting either at Pala or Kottayam. But under Ext.P3, his options have not been accepted and he has been posted at Changanassery. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that options given by his juniors have been accepted whereas there is no reason why the petitioner's options have not been accepted.

¶22

I am not in a position to hold that there is anything illegal in the order of transfer under Ext.P3. But nevertheless if the petitioner is desirous of seeking reconsideration of Ext.P3, then he is at liberty to do so.

¶23

In the result, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to seek a review of Ext.P3 in so far as the

¶24

W.P.(C).1915/2008

¶25

¶26

petitioner is concerned and seek a posting in the places to which the petitioner had opted for. If such a representation is filed before the first respondent within one week, first respondent shall take appropriate action thereon, within one month from the date of receipt of representation, in accordance with law. In taking such a decision, first respondent need not consider himself bound by Ext.P3 as such. Subject to this observation writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

V.GIRI, Judge

¶28

mrcs

V.S.Venugopal v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.S.Venugopal v. the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devakumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Vijayakumar & Another Vs J.Sathyadas & Others

Sunil Kumar.K.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

A.K.Pareed Vs Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk & Others

C.Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala

Lathika.L. Vs State of Kerala