IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26908 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, SECRETARY, RUBBER BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM-686 002. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, (DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE), UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI. 3. RUBBER BOARD, REP.BY SECRETARY, RUBBER BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 4. MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD, PATTOM PALACE.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 5. CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, KOTTAYAM-686 002. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R. BY G.P.SRI.NISHA BOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P(C).No.26908 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as Secretary, Rubber Board, Kottayam, on deputation from the State Planning Board,Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner was relieved from the State Planning Board with effect from 29.12.2009. The petitioner joined duty as Secretary of the Rubber Board on 4.1.2010. Ext.P5 contains the terms and conditions of appointment. Paragraph 1 in Ext.P5 reads as follows: “1. Period of Deputation: He shall be on deputation as Secretary, Rubber Board from the forenoon of 4th January, 2010 for a period of four years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.” 2. The Government of India, Department of Commerce decided to repatriate the petitioner prematurely to his parent Department, after giving three months' notice, which was communicated to the W.P(C).No.26908 of 2010 2 petitioner as per Ext.P7 letter, dated 18th May, 2010. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the Rubber Board issued Ext.P8 memo dated 26.5.2010 repatriating the petitioner to the parent Department. 3. In this Writ Petition the petitioner sought the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibits P6, P7 & P8 and quash the same. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to continue in the service of the Rubber Board as Secretary till he completes four years from 4.1.2010. iii) grant such other orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. And iv) award the cost of this petition to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that going by the “subject” shown in Exts.P7 and P8, it is clear that while repatriating the petitioner to the parent Department, a stigma is attached to the conduct of the petitioner, which W.P(C).No.26908 of 2010 3 would affect his future career. In this Writ Petition, the challenge is mainly on the ground that before making such comments in Exts.P7 and P8, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. 5. The Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union of India and Senior Advocate Sri.Joseph Kodianthra, appearing for the Rubber Board, submitted that repatriation of the petitioner to the parent Department was not stigmatic at all and in Exts.P7 and P8, the “subject” was stated as mentioned in the Government letter. In other words, the respondents have no objection in considering for all practical purposes the repatriation of the petitioner absolutely free from any stigma. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the Writ Petition may be closed recording that submission. Accordingly, the Writ W.P(C).No.26908 of 2010 4 Petition is closed recording the submission made by the counsel for the respondents. Repatriation of the petitioner to the parent Department should not be taken as reflecting any stigma on the conduct of the petitioner while working as the Secretary of the Rubber Board. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE cms