IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2010 / 12TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16521 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.SAROJINI, D/O.KUNJUKUTTY, HOSPITAL ATTENDANT GRADE-1, TALUK HOSPITAL, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL SRI.C.SINOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. BY G.P.SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.16521 of 2010 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Attendant Grade-I, at Taluk Hospital, Punalur. By Ext.P1 order, she has been transferred to District Hospital, Kollam. 2. Impugning Ext.P1 order, two grounds are urged by the petitioner. One is that Ext.P1 makes reference to certain irregularities against a Doctor and that the said irregularities even if true, are no justification for transferring the petitioner, who is only an Attendant Grade-I. The other contention raised is that she is attaining the age of superannuation and is due to retire from service on 31/03/2011 and therefore as per the Orders issued by the Government of Kerala, she is entitled to continue at the present station. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that a complaint was received from a person called Shri.Sunny about the irregularities that were going on in the hospital. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted, and irregularities WP(C) No.16521/2010 -2- were found and that on the basis of the findings, it was decided by the authorities to transfer not only the Doctor but also whole staff involved in the irregularities and have completed three years of service in the station. It is stated that it was in pursuance to that decision, transfers were ordered and one of the transferee is the petitioner. 4. If as a matter of fact, based on the findings in the enquiry conducted, it was decided by the superior authorities to transfer out the persons, who have completed three years in the station, such a decision of the administrative authority reflects administrative exigencies and does not call for interference in a writ petition. 5. In so far as the 2nd contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she is due to retire from service on 31/03/2011 and therefore should not have been disturbed is concerned, such protection is extended only by way of guidelines issued by the Government and therefore, in the administrative exigencies, if transfers are ordered deviating from such guidelines, that does not give rise to any cause of action for redressal before this Court. WP(C) No.16521/2010 -3- The impugned decision reflect administrative exigencies and therefore, even if departing from the guidelines transfer is ordered, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg