IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18715 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.K.M.SUKUMARAN, S/O.K.C.MANIKAN, CIVIL SURGEON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DR.RAMESH RAYRU, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KANNUR. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18715 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, as a Civil Surgeon, is presently posted at Community Health Centre, Peravoor in Kannur District. By Ext.P4 order, he has been transferred to MHC, Kozhikkode and is posted as its Superintendent and the 3rd respondent is retained in Kannur District. He seeks to be retained at Kannur District and claims that as against the 3rd respondent he ought to have been posted. Further, according to the petitioner, he being a member of Scheduled Caste community and senior to the 3rd respondent and also for the reason that his spouse is employed in Kannur District, should have been given preference to 3rd respondent for retention in Kannur District. 2. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the 3rd respondent was working as a Deputy District Medical Officer, Kannur, and that on promotion, he has now been retained at Kannur as District Medical Officer. It is stated that it is on account of his service as Deputy DMO that he is retained in Kannur WP(C) No.18715/2010 -2- District. 3. If as stated by the learned Government Pleader, on administrative exigencies, it was decided to retain the 3rd respondent in Kannur District as DMO, unless a case of malafide is made out, this Court will not be justified in sitting in appeal over the judgment. Be that as it may, having regard to the claims raised by the petitioner on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government to retain him in Kannur District, I feel, it is a matter for the 2nd respondent to examine and redress the grievance of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has already been filed Ext.P7 appeal before the 2nd respondent, seeking retention in Kannur District. Therefore, orders on Ext.P7 has to be passed by the 2nd respondent, if necessary, with notice to the 3rd respondent also. This the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg