IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15730 of 2008(V) PETITIONER: --------------------- HASKAR KHAN, 1ST GRADE SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE.SY),MANATHAVADY, WAYNAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND, SURVEY LAND AND RECORDS, (RE.SY), MANANTHAVADY. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTEND, SURVEY LAND AND RECORDS, KARANI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 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