IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17142 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DR.MARY KUTTY JOSE, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. JOSE AUGUSTINE, NEDUMKALLI HOUSE, KARIKODE.P.O, THODUPUZHA (E), IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADDL.R2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.7143/2010 DT 3/6/10) GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 17142 OF 2010 (P) ===================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Ophtalmologist presently designated to Junior Medical Consultant Cadre. She was posted at Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Thodupuzha and by Ext.P1 order, she has been transferred to Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Tripunithura in the same cadre. It is this order which is under challenge. 2. Although several contentions have been raised by the petitioner, learned Government Pleader attempted to sustain Ext.P1 order contending that this order was passed in pursuance to the interim order passed by this Court on 9/4/2010 in WP(C) No.1120/10 and connected cases permitting the respondents to effect transfer and placements on a provisional basis subject to the outcome of the writ petitions challenging the constitution of the Specialty Cadre, which are pending before this Court. 3. Irrespective of the merits of the contentions raised, counsel for the petitioner has referred me to Ext.P2, the certificate issued by the Superintendent of the District Hospital, Idukki certifying that the petitioner's child Sri.Joshua Jose, WPC No. 17142/10 :2 : presently aged 6 years, has 80% permanent disability due to 'Autism'. It is stated that since he is permanently disabled, the child requires the presence and care of the petitioner and that if the placement as ordered in Ext.P1 is implemented, it will not be possible for the petitioner to look after the child. Although as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, this difficulty pointed out by the petitioner is a matter for the respondents to consider, still as present, since her difficulty, which appears to be a genuine one, has not been considered, I feel at this stage, if the transfer is implemented, grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. 4. Therefore, I feel that this is a matter for the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders remedying the grievance of the petitioner to the extent possible. Counsel for the petitioner submits that she has already filed Ext.P5 representation before the additional 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider the said representation. 5. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: WPC No. 17142/10 :3 : (1) That the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner requesting to exempt her from transfer from Thodupuzha and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (2) It is directed that until orders are passed as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 to the extent the petitioner is posted to Taluk Headquarters, Tripunithura will stand stayed and the petitioner will be retained at the Taluk Headquarters, Thodupuzha, Idukki District. (3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp