BINDU.P v. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ petition is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner'srequest in Ext.P7, in the light of Ext.P9. It is directed thatsuch reconsideration shall be completed within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of…
Judgment
WPC 20558/07: 2 :rejected and finally the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing the respondents to consider herclaim against future vacancies. She was also given libertyto point out availability of vacancies, and seek postingagainst one of them. Taking advantage of the liberty sogiven in Ext.P6, petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representationpointing out vacancies in Pathanamthitta District as well asin Vaidyuthi Bhavanam, Thiruvananthapuram. Still laterExt.P2 transfer order was again modified and on thatoccasion also her claim was not considered and it is in thatbackground, this writ petition was filed by the petitioner toquash Ext.P5 and to direct 2nd respondent to considerExt.P7.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the Boardjustifying the transfer of the petitioner and contending thatthe vacancies in Trivandrum (Urban), (Rural) and VydyuthiBhavanam, have to be filled up by promotees. It is also WPC 20558/07: 3 :stated that she already had a tenure of 3½ years at Mavelikkara and it was therefore that she had to betransferred out to consider eligible requests of those whohad longer out station service. However, the counteraffidavit does not make reference to the vacancies pointedout by the petitioner in Pathanamthitta District. Along withthe reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, she has produced acommunication obtained in terms of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In this communication, the PublicInformation Officer of the Board has informed her that in Pathanamthitta Division, there are eight vacancies of SeniorAssistants as on 21/6/07.
In the light of Clause VIII of Ext.P1 transfernorms, the Board is bound to ensure that as far as possiblewomen employees are accommodated in nearby places. Ifthat be so, it is only fair that the request of the petitioner isalso considered against one of those vacancies in WPC 20558/07: 4 :Pathanamthitta District, which have been mentioned in Ext.P9.
Operative part
The 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner'srequest in Ext.P7, in the light of Ext.P9. It is directed thatsuch reconsideration shall be completed within a period oftwo weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of thisjudgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.Rp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ petition is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right toInformation Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 10 Aug 2007. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.