RENJITH MAMBARATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, is aggrieved by his transfer to a lower post and subsequent suspension. As both the cases are filed by the very same petitioner, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. Parties and documents referred to in this judgment are as described in WP(C).No.8187/2016 unless otherwise specifically referred. Petitioner who was originally appointed as Project Officer at Thiruvananthapuram, was later transferred and posted as District Programme Officer as per Ext.P5 order dated 4.8.2012.

(2.) Ext.P5 order was issued at the time when the petitioner had been working as Project Officer on the basis of Ext.P1 order of appointment issued on 27.1.2009. Apart from that the respondent had issued Ext.P4 order giving additional charge of District Programme Officer to the petitioner w.e.f. March, 2012. Immediately on receipt of Ext.P5 order, by which the petitioner was posted to a lower post with lesser scale of pay, the petitioner approached this Court in WP(C).No.14511/2013. Subsequent to that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 representation for reposting him as Project Officer.

(3.) In WP(C).No.14444/2014, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to fill up the post of Project Officer on regular basis until further orders. The writ petition was finally disposed of as per Ext.P11 judgment directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Project Officer within a period of one month. In the Writ Appeal filed by the respondents the Division Bench modified the judgment to the extent it directed appointment of the petitioner as Project Officer, directing the respondent board to take a final decision in the case of the petitioner within a period of one month. It was also directed that the direction to reappoint him as Project Officer need not be implemented.