Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Sub Engineer, is said to have been working outside the home station for the last seven years. In terms of the policy existing in the respondent Board, the petitioner has requested the authorities to transfer him to his native district, inasmuch as the policy is to the effect that any employee, who is working outside the home station for more than three years, is required to be transfered to the home station on his request. When the petitioner's request to that effect was not considered, she is said to have made a representation in Exhibit P5. Complaining of delay on the part of the authorities in WPC 28803/14 2 disposing of Exhibit P5, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv