High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.Sindhu Sreedharan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 30 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr.Sindhu Sreedharan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 30 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 13936 of 2010(N)


1. DR.SINDHU SREEDHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,

4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),

5. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.R.RAVI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :30/04/2010

 O R D E R
                 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
             -------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.13936 of 2010
             -------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 30th day of April, 2010

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as an Assistant Surgeon under

the State Health Services. According to her, she has

actual rural service of 11 years 5 months and 23 days.

However, while preparing the seniority list for admission

to Post Graduate Medical (Degree/Diploma) Courses in the

Medical Colleges in Kerala for the year 2010, she has been

given the benefit of only 7 years 11 months and 14 days of

her rural service. Consequently, the rank of the petitioner

in the seniority list has come down to 159 instead of 42, to

which rank she is legitimately entitled to. The petitioner

apprehends that due to the above mistake, she may lose

her chance of getting admission to her Post Graduate

Medical course.

2. The petitioner has set out her grievances in detail,

in Ext.P6 appeal, which is pending before the second

respondent. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 is pending

consideration of the second respondent, I do not propose

wpc No.13936/2010 2

to consider the merits of the contentions raised in this

Writ Petition. Since the process of selection of candidates

from Ext.P8 list is already in progress, it is necessary that

Ext.P6 is disposed of without further delay.

3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed of directing the second respondent to consider

the appeal of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P6 in

accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders

thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate before

the second round of consideration of the candidates who

are ranked in the seniority list, evidenced by Ext.P8. The

petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition as well

as a copy of this judgment before the second respondent

for prompt compliance with the above direction.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE

css/