IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 20143 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- BINDU.K.S., OPHTHALMIC ASST.GRADE-I, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KONNY. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, HEALTH DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BINDHU T.S., OPHTHALMIC ASSISTANT/REFRACTIONIST, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, OCHIRA, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3 ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R4 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R4 SRI.MANU V. FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.20143 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of transfer passed by the Additional Director of Health Services and Ext.P7 order passed by the Director of Health Services on appeal. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was transferred from the Primary Health Centre, Konny to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chalakkudy. By Ext.P3, the fourth respondent was transferred from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor and posted at Primary Health Centre, Oachira. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation before the Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P(C) No.16651 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P6 judgment delivered on 4.6.2008, this Court while declining to interfere with Ext.P3, directed the first respondent - State of Kerala to make over Ext.P5 representation to the Director of Health Services and further directed the Director of Health Services to consider the same and take a decision thereon. Pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment, the Director of Health Services considered the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and by Ext.P7 letter dated 17.6.2008, informed the petitioner that her appeal against the order of transfer lacks merit. The second respondent has in Ext.P7 stated that as the petitioner has completed 3 ½ years of service at Konny, she is liable to be WP(C) 20143/08 -: 2 :- transferred out and that the substitute posted at Konny in her place (who is not a party to this Writ Petition) had served for 4 ½ years in Kumily which is a remote area and was entitled to be posted at the Primacy Health Centre, Konny. The second respondent has further stated that the stations which the petitioner had opted in Ext.P1 application for transfer were filled up by her seniors and there is no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in her parent district, namely, Kollam. The petitioner contends that the fourth respondent who is posted at the Primacy Health Centre, Oachira entered service only in the year 2004 and is junior to the petitioner and that the Director of Health Services has not applied his mind to the said aspect of the matter and brushed aside her contentions on the erroneous assumption that the fourth respondent is senior to the petitioner in service. Smt. Anu Sivaraman. the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents contends that as the petitioner is liable to be transferred out to Konny, she cannot claim a posting at Kollam District itself and that the vacancies in the stations which the petitioner had opted were filled up by posting persons who are senior to the petitioner. In the statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 also a similar contention is raised. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that she is a native of Neyyattinkara Taluk in Thiruvananthapuram District and that she was given a posting at Oachira taking note of her past service in northern Districts including tribal areas. WP(C) 20143/08 -: 3 :- 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. This Court has in Ext.P6 judgment held that the order of transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 does not merit interference. This Court had in Ext.P6 judgment only directed the second respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner against Ext.P3 order of transfer and to take a decision thereon. The second respondent has pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, considered the petitioner's grievance and informed her that her request for cancellation of the transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 cannot be considered at present. The Apex Court has in State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal - (2004) 11 S.C.C. 402 held that an order of transfer cannot be lightly interfered with and that the guidelines governing transfer do not confer any enforceable right on the employee. It was further held that an order of transfer can be interfered wirh only if it is passed by an incompetent authority or is passed in violation of any statutory rule or is vitiated by malafides. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been able to show that the order of transfer evidenced by Ext.P3 was passed by an incompetent authority or that it is passed in violation of any statutory rule. The petitioner has also not pleaded or proved that the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides. 3. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the challenge to Exts.P3 and P7. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of the official WP(C) 20143/08 -: 4 :- respondents from considering the case of the petitioner for a posting at another station, if vacancy arises later. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 24/9