IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14615 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR.P.AJITHAN PILLAI, DRUGS INSPECTOR (AYURVEDA). OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM-682 030. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SMT.P.RETNAKUMARI SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETAFRY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH @ FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNEMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DRUGS CONTROLLER, KERALA STATE, TTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 3. DR.JAYA V.DEV., DRUGS INSPECTOR (AYURVEDA) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, KOZHIKODE. ADDL.R4. 4. DR.P.Y.JOHN, DRUGS INSPECTOR (AYURVEDA) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, KOLLAM. (Impleaded as per order dated 19.5.2008 in I.A.5984/08) BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR ADDL.R4. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2 SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14615 of 2008 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.5.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. DTED 24.10.05 (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14615/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner, who is working as Drug Inspector (Ayurveda), challenges Ext.P1 order of transfer by which he has been transferred from Eranakulam District to Kozhikode District. The fourth respondent who was at Kollam, is posted in the place of the petitioner and the third respondent who was in Kozhikode, has been posted at Kollam, accepting her request. The order of transfer is challenged inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has completed three years in Eranakulam and had earlier service of three years in Idukki District. He is a native of Kollam District. Since he had already served more than six years outside the District, he is entitled to be considered for a posting in Kollam District. It is accepted that there are only three posts of Drug Inspector (Ayurveda), namely at Kollam, Eranakulam and Kozhikode. It is contended that the third respondent had joined service only in January, 2007 and normally should have W.P.(C).14615/2008 2 been retained in Kozikode itself for a period of at least, three years. Her option to come to Kollam should not have been entertained before she had completed three years of service. Apparently, option has been accepted by extending a privilege to the third respondent, which according to the petitioner, ought not to have been done. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by third and fourth respondents separately. In so far as the fourth respondent is concerned, though the order of transfer as such has not been challenged, it is pointed out that the fourth respondent has been prevented from assuming charge at Eranakulam and he therefore, remains without a posting since 13.5.2008. It is pointed out that he had been relieved from Kollam pursuant to Ext.P1, but has not been permitted to take charge at Eranakulam, on account of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 13.5.2008. 3. According to the third respondent, she had W.P.(C).14615/2008 3 requested for a transfer to Kollam and her request was eligible to be considered. It is contended that she has entered into an intercaste marriage and that she belongs to the scheduled caste community. But at the same time, it is admitted that the third respondent’s husband is not a Government servant. Third respondent is a native of Panthalam and she is also required to look after her aged parents. It is therefore, that she requested for a posting in Kollam District. 4. There is a controversy as to whether the third respondent had taken charge at Kollam on the date on which this Court had passed an order of status quo, ie, on 13.5.2008. Where as the third respondent submits that she has taken charge in Kollam, Petitioner contends that she has proceeded to sign in the register maintained in the office at Kollam, to make it appear that she has assumed charge and that she has joined duty at Kollam. W.P.(C).14615/2008 4 5. I do not think it is necessary to resolve the controversy as to whether the third respondent has assumed charge or has legitimately joined duty. The rival claim of the petitioner on one hand and the third respondent on the other, may appropriately be decided by the Government. But I am constrained to observe that the third respondent may not be entitled to claim the benefit of the Government Order, which confers on inter caste married couple, a preferential right to work in the same station. This is for the reason that the third respondent’s husband, admittedly is not a Government servant. But I consider it important that the third respondent should not be further prevented from joining duty. 6. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (i). Petitioner may prefer an appeal before the Government against Ext.P1 within a period of two weeks from today. W.P.(C).14615/2008 5 If it is so done, Government shall take a decision on the same adverting to the contentions of the petitioner and the third respondent, within a period of four weeks thereafter. Petitioner and the third respondent shall be heard in that regard. Government shall decide as to who is entitled to be given a posting in Kollam. (ii). Petitioner shall, relieve himself from Eranakulam and take charge at Kozhikode. This is to enable the fourth respondent to join at Eranakulam. This shall be done within one week from today. (iii). It is made clear that the fact that the petitioner is being asked to join at Kozhikode and the third respondent is being permitted to remain at Kollam, shall not be treated as a relevant factor by the Government in considering the rival claim of the petitioner and the third respondent in the manner aforementioned. (iv). Since the fourth respondent had been relieved from Kollam and has been W.P.(C).14615/2008 6 prevented from taking charge at Eranakulam, the period when he was away from duty, ie, from 13.5.2008 till he takes charge at Eranakulam, shall be treated as joining time for all purposes. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs