IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 431 of 2009(V) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7211/2009 Dated 13/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WPC. -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.MUHAMOOD T.T RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC. ------------------------- 1. VARGHESE SAMUAL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST. 2. ANCY JOHN, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,PAINGOTTOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.P.SATHEESAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.431/2009 in W.P.(C) No. 7211/2009-V - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing for the review petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In the writ petition, the challenge was against the order of transfer As per the judgment, this Court directed that the second respondent in the writ petition will pass a fresh order within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This direction was issued in the light of the fact that the third respondent in the writ petition expressed her willingness to be posted as Asst. Director in Thalassery. 2. In the review petition, it is pointed out that the transfer of the petitioner was necessitated in the light of Annexure I letter from the Director of Agriculture, Special Vigilance Cell, Directorate of Agriculture, Trivandrum and in view of the allegations against him. It is in that circumstances, it was pointed out that the continuance of the petitioner in the same station cannot be justified. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that there is nothing to indicate that the transfer of the writ petitioner was based RP 431/2009 2 on the proposed action as per Annexure I. It is further submitted that now the writ petitioner has completed three years in the present station and therefore he may be given a suitable posting at the time of general transfer. In that view of the matter, it is not necessary to recall the judgment. 4. In the light of the above, the department will be free to pass appropriate orders with regard to the transfer of employees including the petitioner at the time of general transfer. The petitioner submitted that he has pointed out one or two vacancies at Kaduthuruthy and Kottayam. The said aspect may be considered at the time of general transfer and in accordance with the guidelines. It is up to the authority concerned to consider the various claims of employees and take appropriate decision in the matter. With the above observations, the review petition is closed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/