IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31257 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SULEKHA BEEVI, W/O.SHEREER, SOUPARNIKA, KONCHIRA P.O., VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, WOMEN & CHILD HOSPITAL, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 032 R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV WPC NO: 31257/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ASSESSING THE PETITIONER'S DISABILITY AS 40% P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO: A/7-624/2008/DMOH-TVPM DATED 17.05.2008 TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM GOVERNMENT ANALYST LAB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO WOMEN AND CHILD HOSPITAL, THYCAUD. P3: COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P4: COPY OF THE HISTOPATHOLOGY REPORT OF THE PETITIONER IN THE YEAR 2006. P4(A): COPY OF THE TREATMENT RECORD ISSUED FROM THE S.A.T.HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM, DURING THE YEAR 2006. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO: A7-24062/11/DMOH DATED 08.11.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO JOIN DUTY AT GOVERNMENT ANALYST LAB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JV K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.31257 of 2011-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who claims to be a physically handicapped with 40% permanent partial disability and working as Typist in Women and Child Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 order by which she has been posted to the Government Analyst Lab, Thiruvananthapuram on working arrangement basis for six months. According to the petitioner, the above posting has been done in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the guidelines and the rules that are applicable. According to the petitioner, her posting as per Ext.P5 has been issued solely on the basis of a representation submitted by one Beena D.S., L.D.Typist, Government Analyst Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, it is contended that the WP(C).No.31257/2011-T. 2 said posting is without any justification. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that as per clause 11(a) of the Guidelines for transfer of Government employees, no physically handicapped employee should be transferred until five years of service is completed in a station. Further, such transfer is to be made only between employees having such preferential claims as per the guidelines. It is also contended that the petitioner should have been heard before Ext.P5 order was passed. Allegation of malafides and victimisation are also levelled. 3. A perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the same is only a posting order issued shifting the petitioner from the Women and Child Hospital which is at Thiruvananthapuram to the Government Analyst Lab, which is also at Thiruvananthapuram. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not been shifted to any other place, it is impossible to say that there is a transfer of the petitioner, attracting the guidelines for transfer. The petitioner was posted to the WP(C).No.31257/2011-T. 3 Women and Child Hospital, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P2 dated 17.5.2008. I notice that she was at that time working at the Government Analyst Lab at Thiruvananthapuram. It is not shown that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by her shifting from Thycaud to Peroorkada within Thiruvananthapuram city itself. Though allegations of malafides have been raised, absolutely no material on evidence is available to support the said contentions. For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P5. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation to the first respondent, which is still pending. He prays for the issue of a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, Ext.P6, in WP(C).No.31257/2011-T. 4 accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-