IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17889 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.HARIDAS, ASSISTANT SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. HARISREE, VISHNATHUKAVU NAGAR, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR.MALINI, ASSISTANT SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17889 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as Assistant Surgeon (ENT) in the District Hospital,Kollam. By Ext.P6 order, the petitioner has been transferred and posted to Taluk Hospital, Changanacherry. His grievance is that third respondent who is junior to him has been posted at Kollam and that going by the seniority, he ought to have been given that post. 2. However, instructions of the learned Government Pleader shows that in the revised seniority list, third respondent is at Sl.No.54 and the petitioner is at Sl.No.55. Therefore, going by the seniority list that was followed in the matter of posting, third respondent is senior. If that be so, posting given to the third respondent at Kollam cannot be objected. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the point system introduced by the Government, both of them have secured 19 points each and that the petitioner having six W.P.(C) No.17889 of 2010 2 years more service in the specialty cadre ought to have been given preference in the matter of posting. The special rules do not make any provision to substantiate such a claim now raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such a situation, if the seniority is taken as a criteria, that cannot be faulted. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is seen to have raised his grievances before the second respondent by filing Ext.P5 representation. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 4 week of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that any order on Ext.P5, if prejudicial to the interest of anybody else is to be passed, the same shall be done only with notice to the person affected. W.P.(C) No.17889 of 2010 3 Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE. nj.