IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28636 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THARA.K.N, AGED 51, D/O.K.N.NARAYANAN, KARIMPANAKUNNEL HOUSE, KARANADU, MATTATHURKUNNU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS STAFF NURSE, GRADE-I, GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM). BY ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN SMT.BHAMA G. NAIR SRI.V.K.MEETHIANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 011. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR, PIN-680 609. 5. T.D.BEENA, GRADE-I, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAWADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-670 645. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 28636 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was given inter-district transfer from Thrissur to Ernakulam by order dated 22.4.2010. The 5th respondent filed W.P(C) No. 17028/2010 contending that she was senior to the petitioner in service and therefore the petitioner could not have been preferred for inter-district transfer ahead of the 5th respondent. By Ext. P1 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the rival claims. On the basis of Ext. P1 judgment, Ext. P2 notice was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to file her objections to the proposal contained in Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, Ext. P2 was received by the petitioner on 26.7.2010 and the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 reply dated 30.7.2010. The petitioner would contend that Ext. P3 reply was sent by post on 30.7.2010 itself as evidenced by Ext. P4. But without considering Ext. P4, Ext. P5 order has been passed against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner's contentions have not been considered on the ground that the petitioner did not appear for the hearing on the date fixed for hearing. 2. According to the 5th respondent, she is senior to the petitioner and therefore there is nothing wrong in Ext. P5 order. I am not inclined to go into that question since the petitioner has filed Ext. P3 reply to Ext. P2 and even if the petitioner had not appeared for the hearing, the 2nd respondent was bound to consider the contentions of the petitioner in Ext. P3. A reading of Ext. P5 does not reveal that Ext. P3 has been appropriately considered. In Ext. P5 it is stated that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation/defence statement, which does not appear to be correct in view of Exts.P3 and P4. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the claim as between the W.P.C. No. 28636/2010. -: 2 :- petitioner and the 5th respondent. The petitioner and the 5th respondent shall appear before the 2nd respondent for hearing on 4.10.2010 on which date or on an adjourned date within a week therefrom, the 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner and the 5th respondent and pass orders within one week from the date of the hearing. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.