IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9464 of 2008(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR. V.S.SOBHANA, AGED 52 YEARS W/O.VIJAYAN, CIVIL SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL TRICHUR. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR. L.N.BHAGYALAKSHMI, CIVIL SURGEON DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TRICHUR. 5. DR. A.V.BHARATHAN, SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT HOSPITAL, TRICHUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9464/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner was working as Unit head of Obstetrics and Gynecology in the District Hospital, Trichur. The fourth respondent was functioning there as a Civil Surgeon. Petitioner is due to retire on 30.11.2010. She was posted in the present station at Thrichur, as per Ext.P1 order, having been transferred from Chalakkudy. Petitioner and two other Doctors, apart from the fourth respondent, are designated as Civil Surgeons who are in independent charge or separate units of the Hospital. Petitioner refers to Exts.P2 and P3 guidelines issued by the Government, as per the statutory rules issued under Public Service Commission. Petitioner submits that going by Exts.P2 and P3, petitioner is entitled to be posted in the same unit in the District Hospital in the light of the said guidelines. But fourth respondent had approached the first respondent to obtain a posting as Unit Head of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and accordingly, first W.P.(C).9464/2008 2 respondent issued a posting order to the fourth respondent as Deputy Superintendent. By the same order, petitioner is posted as Senior Medical Officer in the place of the fourth respondent. Petitioner challenges Ext.P4 essentially on two grounds. Firstly, the Superintendent of the Hospital has no authority to issue orders of transfer and posting of Medical Officers. Secondly, going by the guidelines contained in Exts.P2 and P3, petitioner is entitled to be posted in the same unit till her retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the matter of transfers and postings, guidelines in this behalf will have to be adhered to and that cannot be arbitrarily done. Reference is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. M/s Aditya Kumar Gulab Shankar and Another (1993 Supp. (3) SCC 39) and Tejshree Ghag and Others v. Prakash Parashuram Patil and Others (2007 (6) SCC 220) W.P.(C).9464/2008 3 I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan and the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Bejoy Chandran. Mr. Sreedharan Refers to Exts.P2 and P3 to contend that in the matter of placing of Medical Officers in Specialty and Super Specialty cadre, Government has advised the 'Point System' as is evidenced by Ext.P2 and vacancies in the post would be filled up on the basis of select list to be prepared by the DPC and Ext.P2 contemplates such authority only with the Government and not with the Superintendent. He also refers to Ext.P3 to contend that the convenience of the incumbent as such should not govern the working arrangements, accommodation or a change of designation. In cases where transfers are to be effected on compassionate grounds or on grounds of public interest, the authority in that behalf shall be exercised only by the Government. W.P.(C).9464/2008 4 In my view, Ext.P4 does not purport to be a transfer. Both the petitioner and the fourth respondent are admittedly Civil Surgeons working in the same Hospital. No transfer as such is involved in Ext.P4. Therefore, judgments of the Supreme Court cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not have application. In so far as the allegations regarding the infraction of Ext.P2 is concerned, in my view, Ext.P4 does not involve a placement as is contemplated under Ext.P2. Petitioner and the fourth respondent continue to be Civil Surgeons. Post of Deputy Superintendent involves administrative tasks and the fourth respondent has been given charge of the same. This is not even in displacement of the petitioner. Infraction of Ext.P3 would again arise for consideration only if what is involved in Ext.P4 is a transfer which, according to me, Ext.P4 does not W.P.(C).9464/2008 5 purport to effect. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P4 as such. But nevertheless, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, it is still open to her to move the Government pointing the above facts. If the petitioner does so within a period of two weeks from today, Government shall look into the same and take appropriate decision within three weeks thereafter and obviously, if the change of arrangements effected under Ext.P4 is given effect to in the meanwhile, it shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Government. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs