IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 568 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7230/2010 Dated 17/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- DR.SUNI JOSEPH, MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PANATHADY, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (CALICUT) SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KASARAGODE. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.568/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed by her, challenging Ext.P10 order, transferring her from Primary Health Centre, Panathady, Kasaragod to Primary Health Centre, Kolachery, Kannur and also Ext.P13 order of the Government, rejecting her representation against it. 2. The appellant was transferred on administrative ground from Panathady, Kasaragod to Kolachery, Kannur. She challenged that order before this Court. This Court disposed of that Writ Petition by Ext.P12 judgment, directing the Government to consider the representation filed by the appellant against the transfer and also to retain her at Kasaragod till the same is disposed of. Pursuant to that direction, the Government considered her representation and disposed of the same by Ext.P13 order. It was found that for WA No.568/2010 - 2 - the smooth functioning of the Primary Health Centre, transfer of the appellant was necessary. It was also noticed that even the local Grama Panchayat has come up with complaints against her. Taking note of the same and other relevant facts, the Government rejected her representation. The learned Single Judge repelled the challenge against Exts.P10 and P13. Hence this appeal. 3. It is well-settled in law that a transfer order can be challenged if only it is illegal or vitiated by mala fides. The appellant does not have a case that the transfer order is violating any statutory provision. Though it is alleged that her transfer is vitiated by mala fides, there is no material to support that submission. Going by Ext.P13, we find that the transfer has been effected in good faith and in public interest. Therefore,we find no reason to interfere with the transfer. WA No.568/2010 - 3 - Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.