IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21768 of 2010(U)
1. GIRIJA THANKACHI.M., HEAD NURSE,
... Petitioner
2. VASUNTHARA DEVI.S., HEAD NURSE,
3. RUMAISA.S., STAFF NURSE GR.I.,
4. SHAHINA SALAM, STAFF NURSE GR.II,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/07/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 21768 OF 2010(U)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 an order issued
by the first respondent on 19.6.2010, whereby the employees
working under the Health Services Department in the Category of
Head Nurse and Staff Nurse Grd.I and Grd.II who did not file option
in terms of Ext.P1 will be permitted to exercise option to the
Medical Education Department. It is ordered that such option shall
be exercised before 5.p.m. on 5.7.2010.
2. According to the petitioners, they were also working in the
Health Services Department and that on the issuance of Ext.P1 order
dated 25.10.2008 abolishing dual control system they had
exercised their option in the manner as provided therein . It is
stated that now that fresh options are allowed to be exercised by
Ext.P4, the persons like the petitioners who have already exercised
their option and came over to the Directorate of Medical Education
are likely to face reversion.
WPC.No.21768 /2010
:2 :
3. In my view, Ext.P4 only has an effect of giving employees of
Health Service department another chance to exercise option to go
over to the Directorate of Medical Education. Such options will have
to be exercised within the period prescribed in Ext.P4 and
processed in the manner as stated in Ext.P1 Government Order.
Ext.P4 therefore reflects a policy decision of the Government which
can be interfered with only if the same is opposed to the parent
statute or if it is in violation of principles of natural justice or if it is
violates any of the fundamental rights of the persons like the
petitioner. In my view, none of these vitiating circumstances are
made out in this case and therefore the policy decision as reflected
in Ext.P4 cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the
constitution India.
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WPC.No.21768 /2010
:3 :