IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20681 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.ABDUL SALAM B., CONSULTANT (GENRERAL MEDICINE) DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM , RESIDING AT DARUSALAM, POLAYATHODU, VADAKKEVILA P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.M.SREEKUMAR SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. DR.A SHAJI, CONSULTANT, (GENERAL MEDICINE)DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI (UNDER OFDER OF PLACEMENT TO DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM)PIN-690513. 4. DR.BINDU V.L., CONSUTANT (GENERAL MEDICINE) TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL,KARUNAGAPPALLY, GP SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20681/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Consultant in the General Medicine. He had opted for posting at Kollam, Karunagappally and Kottarakkara. Accepting the first option exercised by the petitioner, he was posted at Kollam and the 3rd respondent was posted at Manjeri. It would appear that the 3rd respondent filed an appeal against Ext.P2 posting him at Manjeri and by Ext.P3 order, 3rd respondent was ordered to be posted at Kollam and the petitioner was transferred and posted to Manjeri. 2. Although the petitioner accepts that the 3rd respondent is senior to him, the contention raised is that the second option exercised by the petitioner was for posting at Karunagappally where the 4th respondent has been posted. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is junior and even if he had to be transferred from Kollam, he ought to have been posted at Karunagappally. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation which is pending consideration of the 1st W.P.(C).20681/10 2 respondent. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P4, I do not think it necessary that this Court should enter into the merits of the controversy. The writ petition will therefore, stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. Orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs