IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18904 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.P.MOOSAN, HEAD NURSE, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANNUR 2. A VINODKUMAR, HEAD NURSE,DISTRICT HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KANNUR 3. K.SUVASINI, HEAD NURSE, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PAYYANNUR BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREEKLATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.18904 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are working as Head Nurses in the Health Services Department They aspire for promotion to the post of Nursing Superintendent Gr.II. The said post is a selection post. Promotion to the post of Nursing Superintendent is from among the Head Nurses. There is no final gradation list of Head Nurses currently in force. In the circumstances, as evidenced by Exhibit P5, provisional promotions were effected going by the seniority in the cadre of Staff Nurses. According to the petitioners that has now been changed, as evidenced by Exhibit-P6. 73 persons were provisionally promoted as Nursing Superintendent Gr.II without going by the seniority in the cadre of Staff Nurses. This has been objected to by the petitioners under Exhibits P7 to P9. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. W.P ( C) No.18904 of 2008 2 3. There must be some reasonable criteria even in effecting provisional promotions. Adherence to seniority in the post of Staff Nurse is a rational method to be followed. Even in the matter of provisional promotion, there would be impropriety if the rule of seniority is dispensed with. If the allegations made by the petitioners in Exhibit P6 is correct, remedial action at the hands of the Director is called for. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibits P7 to P9 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. One of the petitioners may be heard before a decision is taken by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.18904 of 2008 2 W.P ( C) No.18904 of 2008 2