Dismissed

Murali Sharma v. the Sub Group Officer

Kerala HC17 Sept 2018WP(C)/29825/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this disposal, the Single Judge dismissed the petition apprehending posting in a remote Ettumanoor group. Noting a recent order posted the petitioner in Ettumanoor (nearest to Vaikom) and confirmed his current posting at Kaduthuruthy, the Court rejected the claim for immediate transfer to Vaikom.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the submission that the petitioner is posted at Kaduthuruthy.

Murali Sharma Vs the Sub Group Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 26TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 29825 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MURALI SHARMA AGED 39 YEARS S/O KRISHNAN ELAYATHU VAZHUTHANAPPILLIL ILLOM ERAMALLOOR P.O CHERTHALA DIST. ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.M.MUKESH SRI.MURUKESH REGHU SRI.R.MAHESH (KOTTAPPURAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER THRICHATTUKULAM DEVASWOM CHERTHALA TALUK VAIKOM GROUP TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DIST. ALAPPUZHA, PIN688526.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKOM GROUP, VAIKOM, DIST.KOTTAYAM-686141.

¶12

3 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.CK.PAVITHRAN,SC,TDB

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶17

W.P(C) No.29825 of 2018-C

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of September, 2018

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has filed this writ petition apprehending that he will be posted in remote places within Ettumanoor group and praying for a direction that he shall be

¶21

posted in Vaikom group near to his house.

¶22

The order Ext.P5 has been issued on 31.8.2018 based on Ext.P4 judgment in which this Court had directed the respondents to consider whether continued suspension of the petitioner was necessary pending finalisation of the enquiry and whether a transfer would be sufficient without causing hindrance to enquiry. When the respondents have issued such an order posting the petitioner in Ettumanoor group which is the nearest group to Vaikom, the petitioner cannot have any further claim that he should be posted in Vaikom group itself.

¶23

The learned Standing Counsel on instructions submits that the petitioner is posted at Kaduthuruthy.

¶24

In the above circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition recording the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner is posted at Kaduthuruthy.

¶25

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

¶26

rtr/

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT P1	A PHOTOCOPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 16.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	A PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 21.4.2018 AGAINST P1 NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P3	A PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.ROC 19765/13/S DATED 10.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	A PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.8.2018 IN WPC.24747/2018.
EXHIBIT P5	A PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER VIDE ROC 19765/13/S DATED 31.8.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	A PHOTOCOPY OF ADHAR CARD ISSUED TO THE MOTHER OF PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	A PHOTO COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 6.9.2018.

Murali Sharma v. the Sub Group Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murali Sharma v. the Sub Group Officer

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

Ravi M.K. Vs the State of Kerala

D.Lathika Vs State of Kerala

Jayasree J.R. Vs State of Kerala

S.K. Haridasan Vs Union of India

K.v.Joy Vs Corporation of Cochin

Sreelekha S Vs Union of India