IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16874 of 2008(H) PETITIONER: ---------------------- DR.T. RAJAN, S/O.O.P. THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS, SENIOR LECTURER, DEPT. OF SALYATHANTRA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPPUNITHURA, RESIDING AT T.C. 11/1886, PADINJATTADATH, KOWDIYAR.P.O, NANDANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SMT.ANNIE GEORGE SMT.RINTA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM . 2. DR. MADHURI DEVI, READER, DEPARTMENT OF SALYATHANTRA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16874 OF 2008 H -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Senior Lecturer in the Department of Salyathantra in the Government Ayurveda College, Thrippunithura. The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 order of transfer, by which, the petitioner is promoted to the cadre of Reader (Associate Professor) and posted in Government Ayurveda College, Kannur. By the very same order, the second respondent, Dr.N.Madhuri Devi, Reader (Associate Professor), Government Ayurveda College, Kannur is transferred and posted as such in Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram and Dr.G.Geetha, Seniormost Reader (Associate Professor), Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram is promoted to the cadre of Professor and posted to the Government Ayurveda College, Thrippunithura. It is stated in the Writ Petition that at the time of general transfer, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 31.3.2008 to the first respondent, pointing out his grievance and requesting to repost him at the Government Ayurveda College, Thiruvananthapuram on his re-promotion as Reader. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 was not considered before passing Ext.P6. 2. On going through the averments made in the Writ Petition, I am W.P.(C) NO.16874 OF 2008 :: 2 :: not inclined to interfere in the matter and to admit the Writ Petition. The contention of the petitioner that Ext.P6 order of transfer was passed in violation of the guidelines is a matter to be considered while the petitioner submits a representation to the first respondent pointing out his grievance against Ext.P6 order of transfer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the remedy which is available to the petitioner for the time being. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation to the first respondent pointing out his grievance. Petitioner is also permitted to produce a copy of the Writ Petition to the first respondent along with the representation to be filed. The first respondent shall consider the grievance voiced by the petitioner and dispose of the representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Since a direction is issued to the first respondent to dispose of the representation within a period of one month, the petitioner waives his right to be heard in person. The first respondent shall consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/