V.JEEVA REKHA Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition with a second round of litigation. The petitioner is a Head Constable working in CRPF, Avadi under the CRPF Act. When the petitioner was transferred on promotion to the post of Additional Sub Inspector at the Unit at Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17103 of 2012 seeking to transfer the order of promotion cum transfer dated 28.5.2012. The petitioner did not challenge either the jurisdiction of the authority to transfer him or attribute any mala fides. The only ground raised by her was that she is having no issues even after the Marriage and she is undergoing allopathy treatment for over 5 years. Therefore, having failed in it, she started to take treatment in Ayurvedha. In the middle of the treatment, if she is transferred, her desire to have a child will be thwarted. She also claimed that the Additional Director General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad made a remark that she may be retained at the CRPF Avadi during the treatment. However, this Court, after notice to the respondents passed a final order on 2.8.2012. In that order, this Court directed the petitioner's representation to be considered within one week regarding her declining promotion, which was given in the form of additional affidavit. The respondents without considering her representation filed a Writ Appeal No.2549 of 2012 challenging the direction issued by the learned Judge.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition alleging that the order has been disobeyed. The Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that the order of the learned Judge has been complied with by the respondents. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, she should come independently challenging the said order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the second round of litigation.

(3.) WHEN the Writ Petition came up on 19.12.2012, this Court while ordering notice of motion granted interim stay. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the respondents have filed M.P.No.1 of 2013 seeking to vacate the interim order supported by a counter affidavit dated 2.1.2013.