IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WA.No. 170 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.35414/2010 Dated 05/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- DR. VIMALAMMA JOSEPH, CONSULTANT IN GYNAECOLOGY, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA-688 524. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DR. A.KHAIRUNNISA, CONSULTANT IN GYNAECOLOGY, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, THURAVOOR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. R1 BY ADV. SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. BENNY GERVACIS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 170 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The appellant is the 3rd respondent in W.P(C) No.35414 of 2010. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext.P5; by which she was transferred from Cherthala to Thuravur, in order to accommodate the writ petitioner. 2. In the writ petition a learned Judge of this Court passed an interim order on 05.01.2011, which reads as follows: “The third respondent now submits that the District Medical Officer, Alappuzha has already passed orders retaining the petitioner at Cherthala on working arrangement for three months. The petitioner shall be retained at Cherthala until further orders.” It is apprehending that after expiry of the three months period, the appellant is likely to be disturbed and that the writ appeal has been filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the WA No. 170 of 2011 -:2:- appellant, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondent. 4. First of all, the order impugned is only an interlocutory order, which is not amenable to correction in an appeal. Even otherwise, if at all on account of any subsequent event, the appellant has any grievance, it is for the appellant to seek appropriate orders in the writ petition itself. We see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. Antony Dominic, Judge. ttb WA No. 170 of 2011 -:3:-