IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31932 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DR.E.C.BABUKUTTY ASSICIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ORTHOPAEDKS MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPARTMETAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY ITS CONVENOR. 4. DR.T.M.JOSE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ORTHOPAEDICS, MEDICAL COLLEGE, MULLAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR (UNDER ORDERS OF PROMOTION TO MEDICAL COLLEGE ALAPPUZHA.) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON 07/11/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 31932 OF 2008 (B) ==================== Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner joined service as Lecturer in Orthopeadics in Alappuzha Medical College on 16/3/1994. He was promoted as Assistant Professor and as Associate Professor on 5/10/2000 and 19/9/2007 respectively. While so, on the allegation that petitioner had issued disability certificates for production before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal accepting payments, he has been placed under suspension. Thereupon he filed Ext.P3 for reviewing the order of suspension and by Ext.P4 judgment in WP(C) No.30440/08, this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 and pass orders thereon within 6 weeks. It is stated that orders in that behalf are awaited. 2. In the meantime Ext.P1 revised select list dated 28/4/2008 was issued with the 4th respondent herein as junior to the petitioner. It is stated that the 4th respondent filed a representation claiming seniority over the petitioner and one Dr.P.Gopinathan and sought revision of the list by filing Ext.P2 representation. It is stated that the 1st respondent passed orders to the effect that the 4th respondent is senior to the petitioner and Dr.Gopinathan and directed the 3rd respondent to revise Ext.P1 select list. WPC 31932/08 :2 : Petitioner did not challenge the said decision, but Dr.P.Gopinathan challenged the same before this Court and that writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P2 and the representation filed by Dr.Gopinathan. Petitioner submits that the issue is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent and that it was in the meanwhile that Ext.P5 was issued, promoting and posting the 4th respondent to the post held by him. In this writ petition, the prayers sought are to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 1st respondent to keep the post of Associate Professor in Orthopedics at Alleppey Medical College held by him vacant till a decision is taken in pursuance to Ext.P4 judgment. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the decision assigning seniority to the 4th respondent over him. Though the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said order is subject to consideration of the 4th respondent's case by the DPC and since the order is not produced, this Court is not in a position to confirm the correctness of the said submission. Whatever that be, irrespective of the technicalities involved, fact remains that the petitioner is under suspension and his request for revocation of suspension is also pending. It was while so that by Ext.P5, the 4th respondent was posted in his place. WPC 31932/08 :3 : 4. If the administrative authority thought that the post of Associate Professor in Medical College, Alappuzha should not be kept vacant and that there should be a Doctor in that place, such a decision taken in the exigencies of service should not be upset by this Court in a writ petition. That apart, the only contention raised by the petitioner is that pending review of the seniority at the instance of Dr.Gopinathan and consideration of his request for revocation of his suspension, the 4th respondent ought not have been posted. In my view, this contention does not justify keeping the post vacant, which will be against public interest. If at all once orders are passed, the situation calls for a review and I have no reason to think that the authorities will not rise to the occasion and do the needful. 5. But then that does not justify the prayers sought for in the writ petition. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp