IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 31240 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. GLADIS.K.B., LADY HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREE DEVI.M.S., JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ELOOR. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.P.S.ABHISHEK SMT.KAVYA P.PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. P.M.SUNIL, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, P.H.CENTRE, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. K.P.KRISHNA KUMAR, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, P.H.CENTRE, CHENNITHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY G.P. SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5/02/2009, THE COURT ON 12/2/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 31240 of 2008-R - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings, Ext.P6 by which the Government took a policy decision to amend the Special Rules for the purpose of re-designating certain posts. According to the petitioners, the said order is passed due to extraneous reasons and at the instance of third parties who have no right to demand such re-designation. 2. The petitioners are working in the Health Department. Both of them entered service as Junior Public Health Nurse. By Exts.P1 and P2 the Government implemented the Multi Purpose Workers Scheme throughout the State from 1.7.1983. This is a centrally sponsored and funded scheme and additional posts were created. This was based on the recommendation by the Director of Health Services. Ext.P1 gives the details regarding existing designation and re-designation of various persons working at different levels from grass root to District level. 3. Therein, the changes effected are the following: 'Public Health Nurse' was re-designated as 'Lady Health Inspector' and 'Public Health Nurse (MCH)' was re-designated as 'Lady Health Supervisor'. The Wpc 31240/2008 2 petitioner has quoted the relevant Special Rules to show the qualification required for appointment also. It is contended that the qualification prescribed for Junior Public Health Nurse and its higher posts shows that, they are mainly trained in the matter of Mother, Child and Family Welfare. On the other hand, the qualification required for Junior Health Inspector and above shows that, their duties are confined to Health and Sanitary Welfare of general public including prevention and control of epidemic diseases. It is pointed out that a comparative reading of Exts.P3 and P4 Special Rules will show that the Junior Health Inspector need not acquire any further qualification for getting promotion to any post in the higher grade, whereas Junior Public Health Nurse can get promotion to the next higher post of Lady Health Inspector only on passing a supervisory training course. 4. Ext.P6 is an order issued by the Government proposing re- designation of Lady Health Inspector and Lady Health Supervisor as Public Health Nurse and Public Health Nursing Supervisor. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that it is based on the proposal from the Director of Health Services and after a discussion with the various service organisations. Reference (1) is the judgment dated 4.10.2006 in Writ Petition No.25924/2006 whereby this court had directed the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners therein. By Ext.P6 it is proposed that amendments will be made to the Special Rules. 5. In answer to the contentions, the first respondent has filed a Wpc 31240/2008 3 statement in which it is stated that the decision was taken in a meeting of the major service organisations with the Hon'ble Minister for Health, on 17.3.2008 to sort out the issues on six items in which the matter of re- designation of Lady Health Inspector and Lady Health Supervisor was also included. The service organisations have not raised any serious objection in the meeting. Accordingly, a decision was taken. Ext.R1(a) is the copy of the minutes of the meeting and the full text of Ext.P5 is produced as Ext.R1(b). 6. Going by Ext.P6, the decision has been taken in a meeting attended by various representatives of service organisations. The argument that it has been taken due to the pressure exerted by one group alone, cannot therefore stand. Going by Ext.P1, a re-designation was effected in the year 1983. In the changed scenario, the Government has proposed a further re- designation. There is no basis in the plea by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Ext.P1 was the result of a detailed study conducted by the authorities concerned and therefore it could not have been changed. Ext.P1 only produces a structure for the implementation of the scheme. Even if it is effected after a detailed study, nothing prevents the Government at a later point of time, to provide a particular designation to a particular post. The same remains the prerogative of the Government and is only in the realm of policy decision. It is well settled that unless the policy decision is vitiated by various factors like violation of any statutory provisions or violation of Wpc 31240/2008 4 fundamental rights, this court will not be justified in interfering with the matter. Further, the petitioners have no legal right to be designated by a particular name for holding the post concerned. It is well settled that the Government or the expert body having expertise is competent to take a decision in the matter and this court cannot sit in appeal over the same and substitute its views in such matters. In that view of the matter, it is absolutely for the authorities concerned to take a decision regarding the re- designation. 7. None of the legal rights of the petitioner or any fundamental rights of the petitioners have been affected by Ext.P6. It cannot be said that there is any violation of statutory provisions also. Nobody has a vested right to have a particular designation. Further, Ext.P6 has been issued after a decision was taken in a meeting attended by various service organisations. Nobody had objected to the same also. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/