Haskar Khan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 27 May, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15730 of 2008(V)


1. HASKAR KHAN, 1ST GRADE SURVEYOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, SURVEY AND LAND

3. OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND, SURVEY LAND

4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :27/05/2008

 O R D E R
                        V.GIRI, J.
         -------------------------
           W.P.(C).No.15730 of          2008 V
         -------------------------
           Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008.


                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of

transfer by which he has been transferred from

Ambalavayal, Wayanad District to Kothamangalam in

Ernakulam District. The petitioner submits that he has

completed only two years of service in the present place

of posting and that he did not apply for a transfer. At

least, he should be permitted to complete 3 years. He

submits that Ext.P1 is in contravention of the guidelines

in Ext.P2 series orders regulating transfers and

appointments in the Department of Survey and Land

Records. The petitioner has filed an application, what is

in the nature of an appeal, Ext.P3 before the Director.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least till

Ext.P3 is considered and disposed of, transfer under

Ext.P1 should not be given effect to.

2. There is little scope for this court to interfere

with an order of transfer in proceedings under Article 226

W.P.(C).NO.15730/08

:: 2 ::

of the Constitution of India. Mere infraction of the

guidelines is not sufficient. I refrain from expressing any

opinion as regards the correctness of Ext.P1, in

circumstances where the petitioner has filed Ext.P3

appeal before the Director. I do not find any reason to

stay the implementation of Ext.P1, pending consideration

of Ext.P3.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders

on Ext.P3, in accordance with law, within four weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge