IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1623 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS.MANJU R., UPPER DIVISION CLERK, SAT HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 035. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, VELLAYANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 522. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011. 6. SUDHAKARAN K.V., UPPER DIVISION CLERK, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686 008. BY SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 1623 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk under the department of Health Services. In the matter of abolition of dual control system of hospital staff, Government have issued G.O.(P)548/2008/H&FWD dt.25.10.2008. As per the said order, the persons who opt for the Medical Education Department from Health Service Department will be alloted to the Medical Education Department based on the seniority in service. In terms of the said Government Order, the petitioner had exercised the option. Exts. P1 and P2 would reveal that the petitioner had, since then, come to know of the fact she is a cancer patient and, in fact, diagnosis revealed that she is on the second stage of its attack. She is now undergoing treatment at Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Immediately thereafter, she requested for cancelling the option so as to continue with the treatment without much disturbance. So far, no action has been taken thereof, it is submitted. For the said purpose she had submitted Ext.P3 representation as early as on 18.5.2009 and the same was WPC.1623 of 2010 : 2 : recommended by the District Medical Officer(Health) Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P4. It is the delay in the matter of consideration of the request of the petitioner that constrained the petitioner to approach this court by filing this writ petition. 2. The 6th respondent in this writ petition had earlier approached this court with the grievance that though he had exercised his option for a posting in the Medical Education Department, it was not acted upon and several of his Juniors were given such postings based on their option. As per Ext.P10 judgment, this court directed to the Government look into the grievance of the petitioner with reference to the aspect as to whether the option given by any person who is junior to the petitioner in the category of Upper Division Clerk in the Health Services Department has been accepted in preference to that of the petitioner therein, that is the 6th respondent herein. The Director of the Health services was further directed to include him at the appropriate steps in case upon such consideration the Government passes an order in his favour. Relying on Ext.P10 judgment it is submitted that the Government have not so far considered the request of the 6th respondent in terms of Ext.P10 and, therefore, it is WPC.1623 of 2010 : 3 : only appropriate to consider the request of the petitioner made as per Ext.P3 and recommended as per Ext.P4 while taking up the claim of the 6th respondent for consideration. Whether the petitioner is entitled to cancel the option exercised, in the peculiar and pathetic condition to which she is now put to face as evident from Exts.P1 and P2, is a matter which requires a serious consideration by the Government. It is only appropriate that such a consideration as requested by the petitioner is taken up while considering the grievances of the 6th respondent herein in terms of the directions in Ext.P10. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner as per Ex.P4 while considering the grievance of the 6th respondent in terms of Ext.P10, if it had not been done so far. Orders shall be passed as directed above, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. To Judge