IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17728 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SREEDHARAN,S/O.KARUTHAKUNJU, AGED 47 YEARS, SARASWATHI NIVAS,PUTHUPPARIYARAM PO VENNAKKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678733. HEA SURVEYOR, SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUATHAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY, PALAKKAD CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 4. E.R.SOBHANA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CIVIL STATION, TRICHUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17728/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as Head Surveyor in the Office of the Survey Superintendent, Palakkad. By Ext.P1 order dated 31.5.2010, he has been transferred and posted to Wayanad. It is this order which is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. A reading of Ext.P1 shows that the Survey Vigilance Department had conducted an inspection in the Survey Offices in Palakkad and irregularities were noticed. It is based on the report submitted about the alleged irregularities that Ext.P1 order of transfer was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the office at Palakkad only in 2007 and that it is the Survey Superintendent who is liable to answer the charges mentioned in Ext.P1. 4. In my view, if the authorities decide to transfer the W.P.(C).17728/10 2 concerned employees, when some irregularities were found on inspection, in such a situation, the order in the nature of Ext.P1 cannot be faulted with. This is for the reason that the reason disclosed reflects exigencies of service and that no mala fides have been made out. I am not persuaded to interfere with Ext.P1. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs