IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16521 of 2010(M)
1. K.SAROJINI, D/O.KUNJUKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :02/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.16521 of 2010 (M)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as an Attendant Grade-I, at Taluk
Hospital, Punalur. By Ext.P1 order, she has been transferred to
District Hospital, Kollam.
2. Impugning Ext.P1 order, two grounds are urged by the
petitioner. One is that Ext.P1 makes reference to certain
irregularities against a Doctor and that the said irregularities even if
true, are no justification for transferring the petitioner, who is only
an Attendant Grade-I. The other contention raised is that she is
attaining the age of superannuation and is due to retire from service
on 31/03/2011 and therefore as per the Orders issued by the
Government of Kerala, she is entitled to continue at the present
station.
3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions,
submits that a complaint was received from a person called
Shri.Sunny about the irregularities that were going on in the
hospital. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted, and irregularities
WP(C) No.16521/2010
-2-
were found and that on the basis of the findings, it was decided by
the authorities to transfer not only the Doctor but also whole staff
involved in the irregularities and have completed three years of
service in the station. It is stated that it was in pursuance to that
decision, transfers were ordered and one of the transferee is the
petitioner.
4. If as a matter of fact, based on the findings in the
enquiry conducted, it was decided by the superior authorities to
transfer out the persons, who have completed three years in the
station, such a decision of the administrative authority reflects
administrative exigencies and does not call for interference in a writ
petition.
5. In so far as the 2nd contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that she is due to retire from service on 31/03/2011
and therefore should not have been disturbed is concerned, such
protection is extended only by way of guidelines issued by the
Government and therefore, in the administrative exigencies, if
transfers are ordered deviating from such guidelines, that does not
give rise to any cause of action for redressal before this Court.
WP(C) No.16521/2010
-3-
The impugned decision reflect administrative exigencies and
therefore, even if departing from the guidelines transfer is ordered,
I am not persuaded to interfere with the same.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg