IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4985 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHIABHAMA.P., LADY HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,RPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 035. 3. C.A.THANKAMMA, LADY HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THACHANATTUKARA, MANARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 582. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR -R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4985 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Lady Health Inspector attached to the Primary Health Centre, Sreekrishnapuram, working under the second respondent. Both the petitioner and the third respondent were recruited as Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II in Kozhikode District. Subsequently, both of them obtained inter district transfer to Palakkad District. The petitioner joined duty in Palakkad District on 8.7.1985 whereas the third respondent, who was senior to the petitioner in Kozhikode District, joined duty in Palakkad only after 1.6.1986. The contention of the petitioner is that by virtue of the said position, she is senior to the third respondent. However, ignoring this crucial aspect in the seniority list of Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II and Grade I, the third respondent has been assigned seniority over the petitioner, it is submitted. According to the petitioner, this wrong assignment of seniority will affect her promotional prospects. She, therefore, preferred Ext.P5 appeal and Ext.P6 representation before the first respondent. The delay in considering Exts.P5 and P6 has led to the W.P.(C) NO. 4985/2010 2 filing of this Writ Petition. 2. In Exts.P5 and P6, the petitioner has raised her grievances relating to fixation of inter se seniority between herself and the third respondent. According to the petitioner, even on receipt of Exts.P5 and P6, the first respondent, who is competent to look into the matter, has not taken any action so far. The apprehension of the petitioner is that any further delay in the matter would adversely affect her promotional prospects. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on or before 20.3.2010, with notice to the petitioner and the third respondent. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 4985/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 4985/2010 JUDGMENT 16th February, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 4985/2010 4