IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 13TH MAY 2011 / 23RD VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12999 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- UDAYAKUMARI.V.K, MARUTHUPARAMBIL, KUMARAKOM EAST P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES (MEDICAL), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01. 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KASARGOD-671 211. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.T.B.REMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12999 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of May, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Public Health Nurse presently working at Public Health Centre, Kumbadej in Kasaragod District. According to the petitioner, she has submitted Exhibit P3 application for getting a transfer. Thereafter, a draft list of general transfer of the year 2011 was published by the third respondent as per Exhibit P4. As per Exhibit P4 itself, the concerned authority invited objection/appeals from those who got grievances against the draft list. According to the petitioner, she submitted Exhibit P6 objection against Exhibit P4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of Exhibit P6, no action was so far been taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner and to include her name in the final list. W.P.(C) No.12999/2011 2 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I am of the view that having invited appeals against Exhibit P4 list of transfer, the respondents are bound to consider the objections/appeals, if any, received within the stipulated time. In view of the assertion of the petitioner that she has already preferred Exhibit P6 raising her objections against Exhibit P4 draft list, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition as follows : In case Exhibit P6 is received within the time stipulated in Exhibit P4 and pending, the second respondent shall consider the same before finalising Exhibit P4 draft list, if it was not already been finalised. C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE csl