IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6718 of 2008(Y) PETITIONER: P.V.SURESH BABU, U.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.RAVIKUMAR SMT.K.S.SAIRA SRI.A.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KUNNAMKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6718 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Chavakkad, is aggrieved by his transfer from Chavakkad to Wadakkancherry. According to the petitioner, the transfer must be treated as a punishment as such. 2. Ext.P1 shows that the transfer is on the basis of a report of inspection conducted in the office of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnamkulam by the Finance Inspection Wing headed by the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance). Apparently, the inspection team had noted that there was an intentional delay on the part of the Assistant Educational Officer, Kunnamkulam in approving the appointment of one Smt.Jijila Varghese piece-meal objections were raised in the matter of such appointment according to the inspection team. Ext.P1(a) further observes the role of the Section Clerk P.V.Suresh Babu, viz., the petitioner and of Sri.P.V.Jose, Senior Superintendent in delaying the approval of the W.P.(C).NO.6718/08 :: 2 :: appointment and further observed that both of them deserve punishment. There is a recommendation for a transfer as well. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer as such must be confined to the Assistant Engineer and the role of the petitioner was to put up a note pointing out that the claimant in question, holding a B.Ed degree could not be appointed in the post of Lower Primary School Assistant. It is submitted that this stand was supported by the decisions of this court. The Assistant Educational Officer found the objection to be tenable. The role of the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk was confined only to putting up a note as such. These aspects have not been correctly noted in Ext.P1(a) inspection note, it is contended. 4. In my view, if the transfer is purely consequantial upon the recommendation contained in Ext.P1(a), then it would have been appropriate for the competent authority to hear the petitioner also before such recommendation is made. W.P.(C).NO.6718/08 :: 3 :: 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) If the petitioner files a representation pointing out the above aspects before the 1st respondent within a period of three weeks from today, it shall be looked into. (b) The first respondent shall pay particular attention to the claim made by the petitioner that the note of objection put up by him was supported by the decisions of this court. (c) If the petitioner's claim is found to be tenable, then necessary consequential action shall be taken in the matter of transfer of the petitioner now ordered under Ext.P1. Orders shall be passed on the petitioner's representation within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge