IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 13280 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.M.JAMEELA KUNJU, W/O.BASHEER KHAN, FILARIA INSPECTOR (HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II), NFCP, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. UNNIKRISHNAN, HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, NOORANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY G.P. SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 13280 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is presently working as Health Inspector Grade II, in NFCP Unit, Alappuzha, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order transferring her to Medical College Hospital Unit, Ambalappuzha. The third respondent is the substitute appointed in the petitioner's place at Alappuzha. 2. The petitioner challenges her transfer mainly on the ground that she has only two years of service left and that she is not keeping good health. It is not in dispute that the station to which the petitioner has been transferred is only 13 kms away from Alappuzha. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner's transfer to Ambalapuzha will cause any serious inconvenience to her. The employer is, in my opinion, the best judge of the situation. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assess the administrative niceties and exigencies of the situation and substitute its decision in the place of the decision of the transferring authority. The petitioner has no case that the order WPC NO. 13280/2010 -2- of transfer has been issued by an incompetent authority or that it is in violation of any statutory rules. Apart from vaguely alleging that she has been transferred out with a view to oblige the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has not been able to establish with reference to any cogent material which inspires confidence that the order of transfer has been passed on extraneous and irrelevant considerations with a view to favour the third respondent. In such circumstances, I find no ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from moving the competent authority/Government seeking transfer to another station. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. dpk