IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH MAY 2011 / 20TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13250 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.R.VIKRAMAN, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT GRADE II, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE OF HEALTH, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD-678001. 3. C.SUBRAMANIAN, SENIOR HEALTH EDUCATOR, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE TRAINING CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. BY G.P.SRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13250 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 10th May, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed on being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order of transfer whereby the petitioner is transferred from Palakkad to Kozhikode. The petitioner is presently working as Technical Assistant Grade II under the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that against Ext.P1 preliminary transfer order he has submitted an objection. Virtually, the petitioner has requested for a transfer to Ernakulam or Thrissur. It is specifically requested thereunder that in case it is not possible to grant transfer either to Thrissur or to Ernakulam he may be permitted continue in the present station, that is, in Palakkad. The contention of the petitioner is that persons who raised similar requests were either transferred to their places of choice or they were permitted to continue in their present stations. However, in the case of the petitioner, he has been arbitrarily discriminated. Now, by Ext.P3 order of transfer the petitioner is transferred from Palakkad to Kozhikode, that is, to a place which is not at all opted by him. In fact, prior to the passing of Ext.P3, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 representation was not considered prior to the passing of Ext.P3. If it WP(C).No.13250/2011 2 was not possible to grant him transfer either to Thrissur or to Ernakulam, taking into account the fact that his spouse is an employee under the District Tourism Promotion Council at Palakkad he should not have been transferred out of Palakkad, it is further contended. Since the respondents have already passed orders as per Ext.P3, I do not think that any purpose would be served by directing the respondents to consider Ext.P2 which is a representation filed prior to the passing of Ext.P3. However, I am of the view that the contentions and grievances of the petitioner require a careful consideration by the appropriate authority. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a proper representation raising all contentions before the first respondent against Ext.P3 within a period of one week. In case the petitioner files such a representation raising all the contentions, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a further period of two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy //