IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 29488 of 2001(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.KAVITHA, PRIYA BHAVAN, VETTITHITTA P.O., VIA. PARAVANTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CONVENOR AND SUPERINTENDENT, HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, PUNALUR. 3. A.ASHA, E.C.G. TECHNICIAN, GOVT. HOSPITAL, PUNALUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 29488/01. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.8.2000 BY R2. P2. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.22.8.01 OF R2. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 29488 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a qualified E.C.G. Technician. She was provisionally appointed as E.G.G. Technician from 2.5.1996 to 16.8.2001. Thereafter, her services were terminated and, in her place, the 3rd respondent was appointed as E.C.G. Technician. The petitioner's contention is that the 3rd respondent is not qualified for appointment as E.C.G. Technician, whereas the petitioner is, and therefore, the termination of the service of the petitioner to accommodate the 3rd respondent is illegal and unsustainable. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is the petitioner who is not qualified to hold the post. 3. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 4. The petitioner has not chosen to state in the original petition as to what are all the qualifications required for an E.C.G. Technician and what are the qualifications possessed by the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Without those details, it will not be possible to consider the claim of the petitioner. As such, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No. 29488 of 2001-I ================ J U D G M E N T 20th January, 2009 4