IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2697 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SURESH, PHARMACIST, GOVERNMENT FISHERIES DISPENSARY, VADAKARA. RESIDING AT ARIYIL HOUSE, PUTHIYANGADI P.O., PAVANGAD, KOZHIKODE-673 021. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 2697 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Pharmacist working at Government Fisheries Dispensary, Vadakara . As per Ext.P1, option from employees/staff attached to the Directorate of Medical Education and the Directorate of Health Services were called for posting in the Health Department, consequent on the abolition of dual control system of hospital staff attached to the Directorate of Medial Education and Directorate of Health Services. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted an application rather submitted his option as per Ext.P2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite Ext.P2, his option was not considered and some of his juniors were given suitable posting in terms of their option. Feeling aggrieved by the non-consideration of his option, the petitioner has approached the 1st respondent as per Ext.P3 representation dt. 6.7.2009. So far no action was taken on Ext.P3. It is to redress this grievance that this writ petition has been filed. WPC.2697 of 2010 : 2 : 2. It is evident from Ext.P2 that the petitioner had exercised his option pursuant to Ext.P1. At no point of time, the petitioner was informed of any mistake occurred in Ext.P2, it is submitted. He has now filed Ext.P3 before the first respondent to get redressel of his grievance regarding the non consideration of the option exercised by him as per Ext.P2. That is a matter which is to be considered by the first respondent. The first respondent is competent to look into the grievance raised as per Ext.P3. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma WPC.2697 of 2010 : 3 :