IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20243 of 2011(E) ---------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MINI VARGHESE, CHOONATTU HOUSE, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 008, (NOW WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE-II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM). BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM-686 581. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (PH), DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20243 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EG4-13892/2011/DHS DATED 21-7-2011. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 19332 OF 2011 DATED 20-7-2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20243 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 26th July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Health Inspector Grade-II. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer dated 21.7.2011. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner was included in the provisional transfer order dated 17.5.2011. Aggrieved by the proposal in the said provisional transfer order the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 objection. Evidently, as per Ext.P2, the petitioner has raised a contention that she is yet to complete three years stay at the present station and the said proposal was made ignoring the said crucial aspect and at the same time, several persons who have already completed the normal tenure in the said station were retained in their respective stations. The contention of the petitioner is that those contentions were not at all taken into account while issuing Ext.P3. I am of the considered view that the petitioner has to raise such contentions in an appeal in case, he is desirous to prefer an appeal against Ext.P3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal against Ext.P3, there is nothing on record revealing the same. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions WP(C).No.20243/2011 2 raised by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal, in case no appeal has already been preferred, within 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such appeal or in case an appeal has already been preferred and received, the 5th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month with notice to the petitioner and also to the person/ persons likely to be affected in case of a favourable order to the petitioner. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS