IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2010 / 12TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24134 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN.V.K., PHARMACIST GR.II, CENTRAL PRISON DISPENSARY, CENTRAL PRISON, PALLIKKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SHEEBA.J., PHARMACIST, P.H.C.CHAPPARAPPADAVU, P.O.CHAPPARAPPADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) KANNUR. 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) PALAKKAD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24134 of 2010 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working as Pharmacist Gr.II. They applied for inter-district transfer. However their applications were turned down by Ext.P8 order dated 30/01/2010. In Ext.P8 order, it is stated that in terms of Ext.P1 Government Order, only 10% of the vacancies arising in the district in an year in a category in a department shall be filled up by inter-district transfer and that in the absence of a minimum of 10 vacancies in a calender year, the request cannot be considered. Going by the terms of Ext.P1 Government Order, the view taken in Ext.P8 order cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference of this Court. 2. However, learned counsel for the petitioners refer to Ext.P9 judgment dated 14/11/2006 rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.26048/2006 and submits that in an identical situation, this Court has given freedom to the petitioner therein to move the Government for appropriate modification to the Government Order and that taking advantage of the directions in Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 1st WP(C) No.24134/2010 -2- respondent. It is stated that orders on Ext.P7 have not been passed so far. 3. Although Ext.P1 Government Order spells out the policy of the Government to allow limited number of vacancies for inter- district transferees, it is always open to the Government to suitably modify the same depending upon the exigencies. In this case, the petitioners have pointed out certain circumstances and sought for modification of Ext.P1 Government Order by filing Ext.P7 representation and therefore, the said grievance needs to be considered. 4. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P7 representation, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. Needless to say that if the outcome of such exercise is in favour of the petitioners, it will be open to them to move afresh for inter-district transfer. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg