High Court Kerala High Court

Mini Philip vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 25 September, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mini Philip vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 25 September, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22465 of 2009(C)


1. MINI PHILIP, DIETICIAN GRADE-II,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,

4. SUJETHA ABRAHAM,

5. LOLA THOMAS, DIETICIAN GRADE-II,

6. MEENA SOMRAJ,

7. JAINY.K.CYRIAC,

8. JINCY GEORGE, DIETICIAN GRADE-II,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

                For Respondent  :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :25/09/2009

 O R D E R
                           V.GIRI, J
                         -------------------
                      W.P.(C).22465/2009
                         --------------------
         Dated this the 25th day of September, 2009

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner who is Dietitian Grade-II in the Department

of Health Services opted to be shifted to the Directorate of

Medical Education. She submitted an option as per Ext.P2 in

which she has also been asked to give her place of posting as

per preference. While she has opted for the Medical

Education Department, in column No.14 relating to the

stations required for posting (in the order of preference),

she has shown only the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

Though in the original draft list of persons whose options

were to be accepted, as evidenced by Ext.P5, she has also

been included, it seems that later she has been excluded

there from as evidenced by Exts.P6 and P7 which are under

challenge in this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that it

is quite possible that the preference shown by the petitioner

for a station of posting namely the Medical College Hospital,

Kottayam, could have been opted by any person, senior to

W.P.(C).22465/09
2

the petitioner, therefore, petitioner’s option may not have

been accepted.

3. Option is exercised in relation to the Department. If

therefore, an option by any person who is junior in the

same post has been accepted in preference to the

petitioner, then, the matter requires a verification and

appropriate correction at the hands of the Government. The

matter shall therefore be considered by the Government.

4. In the result, petitioner may file a representation

before the Government pointing out the above aspects

within two weeks from today and the Government shall

consider the request with reference to the following

aspects.

(i). Whether as per the guidelines which are

already relied on, the option exercised by an

incumbent is to be considered with reference to

the Department.

(ii). Whether the option by an incumbent to be

shifted to the Directorate of Medical Education is

W.P.(C).22465/09
3

liable to be rejected, if the station for posting

given by the incumbent has already been opted

for by any other senior incumbent as such.

5. Government shall take a decision on the

representation after notice to the affected persons within

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Petitioner shall be retained in the present place

of posting till the Government takes a decision. It is made

clear that orders passed by the Department of Health

Services, consequent upon the acceptance of options from

different persons in the Health Services Department can be

operated upon and the fact that the petitioner is being

permitted to be retained in the present place of posting

shall not stand in the way of operation of such orders.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs