Thomas, j.

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 al