IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9835 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MARY.V.U, AGED 52 YEARS,JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE,C.H.C, MEENANGADI, WAYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), WAYANADU. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. C.NANI, AGED 48 YEARS, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, PHC MULLANKOLLY, WAYANADU. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.9835 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ petition challenging Exhibit P5 order by which the petitioner is transferred from C.H.C, Meenangadi to P.H.C, Mullankolli and the third respondent is transferred in her place. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that the present order is issued in the light of the directions issued by this Court in Exhibit P2 judgment. 3. On a reading of Exhibit P2 judgment it shows that the petitioner had approached this Court aggrieved by an earlier order, by which she was transferred from Meenangadi to Mullankolli. After hearing both sides, this Court directed the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and the fourth respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 4. Thereafter, Exhibit P5 order is passed, obviously after considering the claims of both parties. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in the said order of transfer. WP(C).9835/09 2 5. Admittedly, the petitioner has been continuing in the present station from 2.6.2003. The third respondent had been requesting for a transfer for the last seven years. In these circumstances, Exhibit P5 does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application for general transfer as per Exhibit P4, wherein she has given three choices apart from retention in the present station. Now Exhibit P5 is passed ordering that she cannot be retained in the present station. The petitioner's request for a posting in a suitable station will be considered in accordance with the norms and in view of the fact that she has only two years to retire from service. Appropriate orders will be passed at the time of general transfer, 2009. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE vgs.