High Court Kerala High Court

V.S.Suja vs The District Medical Officer on 11 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
V.S.Suja vs The District Medical Officer on 11 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18286 of 2010(I)



1. V.S.SUJA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOICE GEORGE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/06/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.18286 OF 2010 ()
              --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are working as Nurses in Ayurveda Hospitals in

Idukki District.

2. By Ext.P1 order they have been transferred. First petitioner

is working in the Government Ayurveda Hospital, Kallar and the 2nd

petitioner is working at District Ayurveda Hospital Thodupuzha. By

this order they have been mutually transferred.

3. The 3rd petitioner Smt. Rosily is working at District Ayurveda

Hospital(Annex), Paremavau and she has been transferred to District

Ayurveda Hospital, Thodupuzha and in her place the 2nd respondent

who is presently working at the District Ayurveda Hospital,

Thodupusha, is posted.

4. Petitioners and the 2nd respondent have filed Ext.P5, a joint

representation, before the first respondent requesting for

cancellation of the transfer orders and retaining them at the present

respective places. This request was made immediately on receipt of

Ext.P1 order. They apprehend tht before onsidering Ext.P5

WPC.No.18286 /2010
:2 :

representation Ext.P1 order will be implemented.

5. From the facts as stated above, it can be seen that if the

petitioners and the 2nd respondent are retained at the present

respective places, no prejudice will be caused to anybody else and

in such a case, there is no reason why the representation made by

them shall not be considered. In view of this the writ petition is

disposed of as follows.

6. That the first respondent shall consider Ext.P5

representation filed by the petitioners and the 2nd respondent.

Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

within 2 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the

judgment. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1

to the extent it transfers the petitioners and the 2nd respondent will

be kept in abeyance.

Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a

copy of this writ petition before the first respondent for

compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No.18286 /2010
:3 :