T.SINDHU BHUVANENDRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, quite in extenso.

(2.) PETITIONER is a Ticket Checking Staff. She was transferred to Ernakulam from Trichur. She challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal. With the materials on record, the learned Tribunal noted that she had requested for a posting at Ernakulam Junction as per the letter which is Annexure -R2 in Ext.P3 and had specifically requested to be in the sleeper section as per Annexure -R3 in Ext.P3. On the basis of those two letters dated 20.04.2010 and 21.05.2011, the learned Tribunal took the view that the petitioner's contention regarding posting of husband and wife together does not have any weight. The materials on record were considered, assimilated and relied on by the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusions that it had arrived at in terms of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act. We do not find any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity warranting that decision to be visited by us in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This original petition fails. We clarify that the petitioner/applicant being a woman employee, this judgment will not stand in the way of the establishment considering independently any request that may be made by her.