High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 07 KL CK 0025

Girija Thankachi M., Head Nurse, Vasunthara Devi S., Head Nurse, Rumaisa S., Staff Nurse Gr. I and Shahina Salam, Staff Nurse Gr. II vs The State of Kerala, The Director of Health Services and The Director of Medical Education

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 13 July 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 21768 of 2010 (U)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 300 words

Antony Dominic, J.—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 there in. 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.

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.

4.

Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.