IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30010 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.DILEEPKUMAR.D.S., ASSISTANT SURGEON, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, VALANTHAKADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, GENERAL HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016. 3. DR.JAYA.G., ASSISTANT SURGEON, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 002. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SI.ABDUL KHADER R3 BY ADVS. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SMT.C.G.VINODINI SRI.V.H.NOUFALMON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 30010 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- APPENDIX -------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS ----------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A1- 18746/2011/DMOH/EKM DATED 20-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM MULAVUKADE PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE TO VALANTHAKAD PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20-9-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE IST RESPONDENT SEEKING RETIFICATION OF EXHIBIT P1 ORDER. EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EA2/56805/2011 DHS DATED 5-11-2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONERFROM THE PRESENT STATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------ / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.30010 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon working at the Primary Health Centre, Valanthakad, Ernakulam District has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order by which Ext.P1 order of transfer has been cancelled by the first respondent. According to the petitioner, he is a person who has been subjected to a number of transfers during the short period of service that he has put in from 3.6.2009. While working at Mulavukad, he requested for a transfer to Valanthakad. Thereupon, Ext.P1 order was passed by the second respondent granting his request and posting him to the said place. Accordingly, the petitioner joined duty and he has been working at the said place from 20.9.2011. It is in the above circumstances that Ext.P3 order has been issued. 2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent is a new entrant, a person with much less service than him WPC No.30010 of 2011 2 and his transfer has been cancelled only with the view of helping the third respondent who had sought a posting to Valanthakad. Therefore, according to the petitioner, his transfer is absolutely without any justification and liable to be set aside. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. According to the first respondent, the said authority is the competent authority to effect transfer of Assistant Surgeons in the Health Department. The District Medical Officers of Health are authorised to make only internal arrangements within the district subject to ratification of the first respondent. According to the first respondent, even such internal arrangements are authorised to be effected by the second respondent, only in public interest and in emergencies. Since the petitioner's transfer to Valanthakad was on his request and not on any of the grounds mentioned above, as per Ext.P3, the said order was cancelled. Thereafter, since the post at Valanthakad was vacant, the third respondent who had requested for a posting to the said place was transferred. Therefore, it is contended that there is WPC No.30010 of 2011 3 absolutely no infirmity in the action that was initiated by the first respondent. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent also, refuting the contentions of the petitioner. The counter affidavit also details the personal problems of the petitioner that necessitated her to seek a posting to Valanthakad. 5. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties. As per Ext.P1, it is true that the petitioner's request for a posting to Valanthakad had been granted by the second respondent and thus, he was posted to a vacancy that was in existence. Ext.P1 specifically stipulates that the transfer was subject to ratification by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner knew very well that his transfer was granted subject to the ratification of the first respondent. As per Ext.P3, the transfer of the petitioner has been cancelled by the first respondent and he has been posted back to Mulavukad. Since nobody disputes the power of the first respondent to effect such transfers and to decide whether to ratify Ext.P1 or not, there is no infirmity in issuing Ext.P3 order. WPC No.30010 of 2011 4 Further, according to the first respondent, the second respondent had no authority to grant a transfer like Ext.P1. The authority of the first respondent being accepted by all concerned, it has to be held that Ext.P3 is in order. Since Ext.P1 was not ratified, the action of the first respondent in posting the third respondent to the vacancy that was available at Valanthakad cannot be found fault with. 6. The counsel for the petitioner, referring to the reply affidavit of the petitioner, pointed out that the second respondent had ratified the transfers of as many as six other incumbents, whose names are given in paragraph-4 thereof. However, since the orders ratifying such transfers are not produced before me, I am not able to say under what circumstances such ratification was granted. Since I have already found that the refusal to ratify Ext.P1 transfer order and the consequent cancellation thereof cannot be found fault with, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the WPC No.30010 of 2011 5 petitioner is a person suffering from various ailments and that for the said reason that he had sought a convenient posting. If the petitioner makes a proper request to the first respondent who is the concerned authority to grant such request, needless to say that the same would be considered and appropriate orders passed thereon, without delay. The counsel for the petitioner also points out that there is a vacancy in existence at Nettoor, which fact also the petitioner may point out in the request that he may submit before the first respondent. 8. For the above reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/