IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 11 of 2009(L) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.35601/2008 Dated 09/12/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER: ---------------------- B.VISHNU, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR (LWRC ENGG) KCAE & T, THAVANUR, MALAPPURAM (UNDER ORDERS ON TRANSFER TO RARS, PILIKODE) BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN MR.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KAU POST, VERLLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, KAU POST, VERLLANIKKARA, TRISSUR. MR.K.P.MUJEEB, SC,KERALA AGRL.UTY FOR R1,2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.35601/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.11 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.35601 of 2008 & W.P.(C.) No.35601 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition was filed by the review petitioner challenging Ext.P1 order, whereby he was transferred and posted to RARS, Pilicode. By Ext.P2 he represented against the transfer and that was directed to be considered by Ext.P4 judgment in WP(C) No.29600/2008. 2. Accordingly, the request was considered. But, however, by Ext.P5, the same was rejected. It was challenging Exts.P1 & P5, WP(C) No.35601/2008 was filed, and the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 09/12/2008, primarily accepting the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the University that in the area to which the petitioner was posted by Ext.P1, the Government of Kerala, with the involvement of the 2nd respondent, was implementing a Micro Irrigation Project and that the petitioner's expertise as a Soil and Water Conservation Engineer was essential R.P.No.11/2009 in WP(C) No.35601/2008 & WP(C) No.35601/2008 -2- for the successful implementation of the project. 3. In this review petition, the petitioner contends that there is no such project under implementation. According to him, although certain preliminary investigations were conducted, the project as such was not implemented. He makes reference to Annexures A1 and A3. Annexure A2 is a request made by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer, where one of the questions raised for answering is “Is there a project entitled “Kasaragod District: Water Issues and Solutions” being implemented at KCAET, Tavanur?” Answer to Annexure A2 is Annexure A3, where it is stated that there is no such project, and that there was a report and project proposal submitted by the Kerala Agricultural University Scientist including the petitioner, on the basis of the recommendation by the Subject Committee. Annexure A3 is dated 26/03/2009, from which, the only inference possible is that as on that date, no such project was under implementation. 4. In answer to the averment to the above effect made by the review petitioner, apparently to sustain the submission that was R.P.No.11/2009 in WP(C) No.35601/2008 & WP(C) No.35601/2008 -3- made when the writ petition was considered by this Court, along with I.A.No.97/2009 filed in this review petition, the respondents have filed Annexures R1(a), R1(b) & R1(c). Annexure R1(a) is a letter dated 29/12/2008 from the Dean (Agricultural Engineering) to the Registrar of the University, giving details of certain instructions that were given by the Government regarding the implementation of the project. Annexure R1(b) is a letter dated 05/12/2008 from the Private Secretary to Minister for Agriculture, and Annexure R1(c) is a letter dated 12/01/2009 issued by the Registrar to the Minister for Agriculture. None of these documents shows that any such project as canvassed before this Court was under implementation. 5. In any case, from Annexure A3 dated 26/03/2009, it is clear that even on that date no such project is under implementation. If that be so, the submission made before this Court on 09/12/2008 when the writ petition was considered, that it was the implementation of the project, which justified the petitioner's transfer, does not appear to be factually correct. If so, no material has been produced to justify the transfer. Consequently, the judgment is erroneous and is therefore recalled. R.P.No.11/2009 in WP(C) No.35601/2008 & WP(C) No.35601/2008 -4- 6. Now that the respondents are failed to substantiate the transfer of the petitioner, necessarily his transfer has to be held unsustainable. However, the petitioner has not impleaded the Officer, who has been posted in his post at Tavanur, and therefore, this Court will not be justified in straightaway directing that the petitioner should be accommodated in the post on which he vacated. Therefore, the only direction that this Court can be given is that the respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for accommodation at Thavanur, from where the petitioner was transferred by Ext.P1, provided a suitable vacancy is available to which he can be posted. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent who shall examine the matter and do the needful, and take a decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this order. The review petition and writ petition are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg