STATE OF KERALA Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is apposite in this Writ Appeal to echo the words which M. S. Menon, J. (as he then was) observed more than three decades ago in rajalekshmi Motor Service v. Government of Kerala (1959 KLJ 1425) that "lyengar, J. did not consider these factors as sufficient to decline interference, and in such a case whatever may have been our own reactions in similar circumstances we should not interfere unless we are satisfied that the decision is perverse". What we have to consider in this Writ Appeal (filed by the State of Kerala )is not precisely whether we would have taken a different view if we had exercised the original jurisdiction, but whether the view taken by the learned single judge is reasonably plausible.

(2.) FIRST respondent Executive Engineer (Roads Division), muvattupuzha has been transferred by the Government as Joint Director, Design, research, Investigation and Quality Control (its acronym is 'driqc') Board, thiruvananthapuram, as per Ext. P2 order dated 28-10-1991. He filed the original Petition challenging the said order saying that the transfer is not in public interest and is in violation of the norms laid down by the Government. Learned single judge allowed the Original Petition and quashed Ext. P2.

(3.) LEARNED single judge perused the file relating to first respondent's transfer and discerned therefrom that "at no point of time, there was consideration of public interest or exigency of service before the* petitioner was' transferred from Muvattupuzha". LEARNED Judge pointed out that the two aspects highlighted in the counter affidavit'namely, the advantage of the first respondent as his family is settled down in P. T. P. Nagar and the monetary gain of Rs. 400/- never weighed with the Government. Hence, the judgment concluded that appellant has failed to establish that petitioner was transferred in public interest and "on the other hand, the materials available from the file would show that there was no such consideration of public interest or exigency of service before issuing the impugned order of transfer".