Loading...

K.Prasanna vs Director Of Medical Education on 1 December, 2009

Kerala High Court
K.Prasanna vs Director Of Medical Education on 1 December, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2719 of 2009()


1. K.PRASANNA, W/O.KUTTAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. PHILIP MATHEW, EEG TECHNICIAN, RESIDING

3. PRINCIPAL,

4. SECRETARY (HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.K.ALEX

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :01/12/2009

 O R D E R
   K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
                   ------------------------------
                   W.A. No. 2719 OF 2009
                   ------------------------------
          Dated this, the 1st day of December, 2009


                       J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellant is the writ petitioner. She is a

Rehabilitation Technician working under the 1st respondent.

From Calicut Medical College now she has been transferred

by the impugned order Ext.P4 to Medical College,

Thiruvananthapuram. The said order reads as follows.

“As per the letter cited, the Principal,
Medical college, Calicut has reported that
Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician
and Sri.Philip Mathew, EEG Technician
have been occupying quarters No.LD-1 and
LD.8 respectively. Reports in the form of
complaints/petitions are there that both
of them are in hostility that even led to
physical assaults and complaints to police
against each other. In some instances,
their family members or neighbouring
occupants are also involved either as
witness or victims or otherwise as alleged

W.A. No.2719/2009

– 2 –

assailants. This has created much
disturbance to the peace and tranquility in
the neighbourhood and Medical College
campus and some complaints are reported
to have reached before courts. Meetings,
advices, compromise talks, warnings etc.
were of no use, despite some interim
break and complaints from their
neighbours also have been received. Sine
the allegations are of criminal nature and
not at all related to duty or happening in
the work place and above all the
petition/cases are reported to have been
pending either before court or under
police investigation.

In the above circumstances,
Smt.Prasanna, Rehabilitation Technician
(leather), Medical College, Calicut is
transferred and posted as such at Medical
College, Thiruvananthapuram with
immediate effect.”

2. Challenging the above quoted order, the Writ

Petition was filed. The grounds taken in the Writ Petition

were that the appellant was innocent and her rival, Mr.Philip

Mathew, was responsible for the happenings mentioned in

the above quoted order. But, the learned Single Judge

dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the appellant to

W.A. No.2719/2009

– 3 –

move the Government pointing out her grievances against

Ext.P4, which is an order passed by the Director of Medical

Education. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment, this Writ

Appeal is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that she is innocent and Mr.Philip Mathew alone was

responsible for the happenings dealt with in Ext.P4. Going by

Ext.P4, we notice that the view taken by the Director of

Medical Education is that both of them are equally

responsible. If the appellant has a case that the findings in

Ext.P4 are factually incorrect, her remedy lies in moving the

Government. At this stage, the Writ Court can only proceed

on the basis that what is stated in Ext.P4 is correct.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further

submitted that the transfer during the middle of the academic

year is causing great inconvenience. The guideline that

transfer should not ordinarily be made during the middle of

the academic year is meant for routine transfers. The same

does not apply to transfers made in exigencies of service as

W.A. No.2719/2009

– 4 –

the one made under Ext.P4. A transfer can be successfully

impugned, if only, it is shown that it is illegal or vitiated by

malafidies. Violation of a transfer norm is not a recognised

ground for interfering with a transfer by the Court.

In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)

ps

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information