ORDER U.L. Bhat, J. 1. The petitioner who was promoted as District Educational Officer and posted at Muvattupuzha in April 1984 was transferred to Kothamangalam on 2nd July 1984. On 3rd January 1985 Government passed Ext. P-1 order of promotions, transfers and postings of officers in the Department. As per Ext. P-1 the third respondent who was working as Assistant Educational Officer at Mattancherry was promoted as District Educational Officer and posted at Kothamangalam and the petitioner was transferred from Kothamangalam to Malappuram in a leave vacancy, The consequential order passed by the second respondent Director of Public Instruction is placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen dated 4th January 1985. The petitioner filed this original petition on 7th January 1985 challenging the legality of the transfer order. He filed this C.M.P. also on the same day and on that day the Court passed the following order: "Notice and interim stay if the 3rd respondent has not so far taken charge pursuant to Ext. P-1 order." Today learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the third respondent "assumed" charge in the absence of the petitioner on 5th January 1985 and the charge report signed by the third respondent and countersigned by the Deputy Director of Education has been sent in accordance with the instructions in the Kerala Financial Code and therefore the order of stay has to be vacated. This submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who would contend that the "assumption" of charge said to have been made by the third respondent is not countenanced by the Rules, that it has no legal force and therefore the order of stay must stand and must be effectuated by giving further directions to the respondents. 2. Learned Advocate General pointed out that the third respondent was posted at Kothamangalam on promotion and therefore it is only natural to expect him to be anxious to take charge as early as possible. The anxiety of a promotee to assume office can certainly be appreciated, as long as it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the law. As already indicated, the Government order was passed on 3rd January 1985. It is marked to the second respondent and the officers concerned (through the Director of Public Instruction). The anxiety of a promotee to assume office can certainly be appreciated, as long as it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the law. As already indicated, the Government order was passed on 3rd January 1985. It is marked to the second respondent and the officers concerned (through the Director of Public Instruction). In other words, the third respondent could not have secured this order from the Government. The order was intended to be served on him only through the second respondent. The consequential order was passed by the second respondent only on 4th January 1985 and the order is marked to all the officers concerned, the third respondent, secured a copy of this order sufficiently early so as to enable him to proceed to Kothamangalam and assume charge on 5th January 1985. According to the petitioner, a copy of the order was sent to the petitioner only by post and received long after 5th January 1985 It is in this background that the contentions will have to be appreciated. 3. Learned counsel for the third respondent refers to the provisions in Art.81 of the Kerala Financial Code, Volume I, in support of the assumption of office by the third respondent. This Articles states that every transfer of charge of a gazetted officer should be reported by post on the same day to the Accountant General and other authorities. As a general rule, the reports of the transfer of charge should be signed both by the relieved and relieving officers. District Officers and the Heads of the Departments should also send copies of their reports to the Chief Secretary to Government on the same day. A copy of the report of the transfer of charge should be sent simultaneously to the Treasury Officers concerned and the copies of the report sent to the Accountant General and the Head of the Department or other authority specified in the departmental Code or Manual should contain in endorsement to this effect. There are three notes to this Article. Note 1 states that if the charge reports are jointly signed by the relieved and relieving officers, countersignature by a superior authority is not necessary. There are three notes to this Article. Note 1 states that if the charge reports are jointly signed by the relieved and relieving officers, countersignature by a superior authority is not necessary. Note 2 states that in cases where the charge reports cannot be signed conjointly by the relieved and the relieving officers due to administrative difficulties, the countersignature of the superior authority should be incorporated in the charge reports before they are communicated to Audit. The Heads of offices will be the authority competent to countersign the charge reports of the gazetted officers working under them. Note III is not of much significance for the purpose of this controversy. 4. Article 81, as I see it, does not indicate as to the manner charge has to be taken or given. It lays down the procedure to be followed after transfer of charge takes place. Transfer of charge must be followed by report to the Accountant General and other authorities. The report of transfer of charge must be signed conjointly by the relieved and relieving officers, unless there be administrative difficulties which prevent both the officers from signing. The Article indicates the necessity for countersignature by a superior authority under such circumstances. These are all steps which have to be taken after the transfer of charge. 5. The matter, it appears to me, is governed by Part I of Appendix III of the Kerala Service Rules. Clause.1 states that unless for special recorded reasons (which must be of a public nature) the authority under whose orders the transfer takes place permits or requires it to be made in any particular case elsewhere, or otherwise, the charge of an office must be made over at its headquarters, both the relieving and the relieved officers being present. Clause.2 states that the above condition is not enforceable in the case of officers who are permitted to combine vacation or gazetted holidays with leave. Clause.3 indicates what exactly is to be treated as headquarters of the other officers. The various clauses of Part I read together would clearly indicate that normally transfer of charge takes place in the presence of the relieving and the relieved officers; two exceptions are contemplated in regard to this rule-One is where the authority under whose orders transfer of charge takes place has indicated so for special recorded reasons, the reasons being of a public nature. The other exception relates to the case of officers who are permitted to combine vacation or gazetted holidays with leave. 6. The respondents have no case that the authority under whose orders the transfer took place has indicated that the transfer of charge need not be in the presence of the relieving and the relieved officers. Nor is there any case that such authority has recorded any reason, whether of a public nature or otherwise in that behalf. The provisions in Art.81 of the Kerala Financial Code must be read in conjunction with the provisions in Part I of Appendix III of the Kerala Service Rules. When read conjointly, it would be clear that while the transfer of charge has to take place as indicated in Part I of Appendix III of the Kerala Service Rules, the procedure following transfer of charge has to be governed by the provisions of the Kerala Financial Code. 7. Neither Ext. P-1 nor the consequential order passed by the second respondent indicate that the transfer of charge could be otherwise than in the presence of the relieving and the relieved officers. There is no case that the petitioner was on leave as indicated in Part I of Appendix III. In these circumstance the third respondent could not have "assumed" charge, in the manner in which he purported to do. The "assumption" of charge by him in these circumstances would not come within the condition proposed by this Court "interim stay if the third respondent has not so far taken charge". When the Court refers to the respondent's taking charge, it could only mean taking charge in accordance with law and not in any manner otherwise than in accordance with law. For the purpose of the stay order I have to take it that the third respondent has not taken charge in accordance with the Rules. Therefore the question of vacating the order of stay does not arise. 8. Evidently even now the petitioner purports to exercise jurisdiction as District Educational Officer, Kothamangalam. At the same time, the third respondent by virtue of the assumption of charge by him also purports to exercise the same jurisdiction. So much so this ugly and unseemly conduct on the part of the officers has hit the headlines of the newspapers also. 8. Evidently even now the petitioner purports to exercise jurisdiction as District Educational Officer, Kothamangalam. At the same time, the third respondent by virtue of the assumption of charge by him also purports to exercise the same jurisdiction. So much so this ugly and unseemly conduct on the part of the officers has hit the headlines of the newspapers also. The Court would be justified in stating that the authorities concerned and the officers concerned should have exercised restraint to prevent such an unseemly spectacle. Respondents 1 and 2 will ensure that the petitioner continues at Kothamangalam as long as the order of interim stay subsists. It is open to respondents 1 and 2 to give an appropriate posting to the third respondent.