IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 573 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.13935/2010 Dated 30/04/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- DR.T.M.SREEDEVI, PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SURESH (CHIRAKKARA) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- USHA TITUS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No.573 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who was the Principal of Government Homeopathic College, Thiruvananthapuram, filed W.P.(C) No.13935 of 2010 in this Court, seeking continuance in service till she attains 60 years of age. The said writ petition was filed on 29.4.2010 and it came up for admission on 30.4.2010. Ordinarily, the petitioner would have retired on that day, in accordance with the stipulations contained in Rule 60(a) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules. This Court had admitted similar writ petitions filed by Principals of other Government Homeopathic Colleges and also permitted them to continue in service beyond 30.4.2010, as an interim measure subject to the condition that such continuance in service will not confer any right on them, and the further condition that such service will not also be reckoned for any purpose, what so ever, including determination of the terminal benefits in the event of the writ petition being dismissed. In view of the interim orders passed in similar cases, 2 I passed Annexure-A6 interim order in W.P.(C) No.13935 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. 2. This contempt case is filed alleging that notwithstanding the communication of Annexure-A6 order to the Government, the Government have issued Annexure-A7 order on 30.4.2010, promoting Dr.N.S.Valsalakumari, Professor, Government Homeopathic Medical College, Kozhikode, and posting her as Principal, Government Homeopathic College, Thiruvananthapuram, in the place of the petitioner. It is alleged that by promoting and appointing another person, the Government have virtually denied the petitioner, the benefit of Annexure-A6 interim order and prevented her from continuing in service, after 30.4.2010. 3. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department has sworn to an affidavit, dated 18.6.2010. It is stated that Annexure-A7 order was issued on 30.4.2010, unaware of the interim order passed by this Court on the same 3 day and that as the petitioner had not filed the writ petition and moved for stay till 29.4.2010, the Government proceeded to fill up the vacancy that would have arisen on 30.4.2010, on the petitioner retiring from service. It is also stated that the petitioner has not attended office from 1.5.2010 onwards. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The fact that the petitioner would have ordinarily retired from service on 30.4.2010 is not in dispute. Many of the petitioner's colleagues had filed writ petitions in this Court long before that date and in those writ petitions, I had passed orders similar to Annexure-A6 interim order. The petitioner approached this Court only on 29.4.2010 and on the next day, Annexure-A6 interim order was passed, enabling her also to continue in service. Annexure-A7 order of the Government is dated 30.4.2010. It means that steps to appoint a substitute in the place of the petitioner would have commenced long back. Since Annexure-A6 interim order was passed only on 30.4.2010, the 4 last day in service and the post filled up was that of Principal of Government Homeopathic College, it cannot be said that the Government have acted in contempt of this Court, when it passed Annexure-A6 order. Further, the petitioner has no case that Annexure-A7 order was passed later with an anterior date. The petitioner has also not denied the statement of the respondent that she has not attended office from 1.5.2010 onwards. In such circumstances, I am not satisfied that Annexure-A7 order was passed in willful disobedience of the order of this Court. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain this contempt case. It is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.