IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25645 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- M.SURESH, S/O.K.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, AYMANAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25645 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was advised for appointment and was appointed as a Field Worker in Health Services in Trichur District. This was some time in January, 2004. Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Health Inspector in the by transfer category. Such appointment was in Kottayam District. After joining in Kottayam District, petitioner applied for an inter district transfer to Trichur District. That request of the petitioner was ordered to be considered by the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.17357/10. The request was considered by the 2nd respondent and rejected by Ext.P9 order. Against Ext.P9, petitioner has filed Ext.P10 representation to the 1st respondent. 2. In this writ petition, the contention raised by the petitioner is that while the petitioner was continuing in Kottayam District, persons junior to him in the category of Field Worker in Trichur District were appointed as Junior Health Inspector in Trichur District itself. Counsel contends that such appointment without considering the superior claims of the petitioner for WPC No. 25645/10 :2 : transfer to Trichur District could not have been made. 3. Despite a specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show me any provision of law requiring that the claims of persons like the petitioner for posting to Trichur District should have been considered before making appointment of anybody else in that District. In the absence of such a statutory provision, I cannot accept the plea now raised by the learned counsel. It is also seen from Ext.P9 that, according to the 2nd respondent, as at present, there exists no vacancy in Trichur District earmarked for inter district transfer. No material has been produced to contradict this finding in Ext.P9. For that reason, the order deserves to be upheld. 4. In so far as direction for the consideration of Ext.P10 is concerned, this is only a non statutory representation, and having regard to the aforesaid reasons, I do not think this Court will be justified in directing its consideration. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp