Dismissed

Dr.T.a.Habeeb v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC29 Jul 2010WP(C)/12922/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a junior medical consultant, challenged his posting alleging that a senior departmental colleague on a lower seniority list number should have been allotted the preferred stronghold instead. This court held that since both postings were based on respective valid options, the petitioner has no grievance and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner requested reconsideration of Ext.P5 for allotment of Manjeri instead of current posting; prayer denied.

Dr.T.a.Habeeb Vs State of Kerala & Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 12922 of 2010(M)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

----------------------

¶9

DR. T.A.HABEEB,ASSISTANT SURGEON, TALUK HEADQUARTERS HOSPITAL, PERINTHALMANNA, RESIDING AT NEEM HOUSE, PERINTHALMANNA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SMT.P.K.SHAKKEELA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH& FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12922 OF 2010 (M)

¶18

=====================

¶19

Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Petitioner is a Junior Consultant in the Specialty Cadre of Paediatrics. The option exercised by the petitioner for posting was for Attappadi. According to the petitioner, although he wanted to opt for Manjeri, his senor at Sl.No.133 in the seniority list had already opted for Manjeri. It is stated that his senior who had opted tor Manjeri did not appear for counselling nor did he claim for Manjeri, as a result of which, Sl.No.180 in the seniority list, who also had opted for Manjeri, was allotted District Hospital, Manjeri.

¶22

Petitioner now states that he is Sl.No.136 in the seniority list, and therefore, he ought to have been alloted Manjeri in place of Sl.No.180 in the seniority list. It is seen that claiming posting at Manjeri, he has filed Ext.P5, which has not been considered by the 1^st respondent. It is in these circumstances,the writ petition is filed.

¶23

Obviously, the allotment of Sl.No.180 in the seniority list to District Hospital, Manjeri was based on the option exercised

¶24

WPC No. 12922/10

¶25

:2 :

¶26

by him and the petitioner's posting was also based on his option. If that be so, even if the person posted to Manjeri is junior to him in the seniority list, petitioner cannot have any complaint against such postings. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the claim, and for that reason, I do not direct consideration of Ext.P5 representation.

¶27

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶28

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶29

Dr.T.a.Habeeb v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.T.a.Habeeb v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs C.K.Johny

Pankajakasthuri Ayurveda Medical College Vs Govt of India and Ors.

N.Bahuleyan Unni Vs Union of India

K.P.Cleetus Vs Commissioner,Land REVENUE,TRIVANDRUM150.

P.G.Satheedevi and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Korah K.Varghese Vs State of Kerala