P.N. Ravindran, J.@mdashThe petitioners in these writ petitions challenge their transfer pursuant to the directions issued by the Government in
G.O.(Rt.) No. 743/2009/H&FWD. dated 19.3.2009, a copy of which is produced and marked as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009.
2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 is presently working as Professor and Head of the Department of Thoracic Surgery and the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 as Assistant Professor in the said department in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. By
Ext.P3 Government order produced in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009, the Government ordered transfer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of
2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. When
W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 came up for admission on 23.3.2009, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner was transferred
on account of an incident which resulted in the death of a patient who had undergone cardiac surgery. He also submitted that the said incident was
enquired into by the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and thereafter the Government passed the order dated
19.3.2009. Accordingly, this Court directed the Government Pleader to make available a copy of the of the enquiry report submitted by the
Superintendent of Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and also a copy of Government order dated 19.3.2009. Thereafter, when W.P.
(C) No. 9266 of 2009 came up for further hearing on 27.3.2009, this Court admitted the said writ petition and issued notice to respondents 1 to
3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 who is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 took notice through Counsel. On that
day, this Court also passed an interim order directing the official respondents to transfer back the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 to
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The said interim order was passed taking note the report submitted by the Superintendent of
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram that the complaint enquired into by him was lacking in merit. The said interim order was complied
with and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 was re-posted in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. In the light of the said
interim order, when W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 came up for admission on 31.3.2009, this Court passed an interim order in that writ petition
directing that the petitioner therein shall also be re-posted in Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The interim orders passed in these
two cases have become complied with and the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have been reposted in Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram. Nearly one year has passed thereafter.
3. The Government have filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 9266 of 2009 wherein besides dealing with other contentions, the Government
have stated in paragraph 4 as follows:
4. There were large number of complaints against the functioning of Cardio Vascular & Thoracic Surgery in the Medical College, Thiruvanantha-
puram. Government have received reports that the Head of the Department i.e. the petitioner and Dr. Rajasekharan V.R., Assistant Professor in
the same Department are in inimical terms and they quarrel each other in front of the patients and even in the intensive care units. Allegations and
counter allegations are raised by these doctors. Complaints were also filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the
Commission has called for a detailed report with regard to the functioning of the Cardio Vascular & Thoracic Surgery Department. Thus the
personal rivalry and fight between two doctors in a Department of rare specialization in a highly reputed medical college resulted in defamatory
media reports against Government that forced this respondent to issue G.O.(Rt) No. 743/09/H&FWD dated 19.03.2009 transferring the
petitioner to Medical College, Kozhikode and the 4th respondent to Medical College, Kottayam. Ext.P5 order was issued by the 3rd respondent
subsequent to the above mentioned order issued by this respondent (Government).
The said contention is reiterated in paragraph 2 of the statement filed on behalf of the Government in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009. Paragraph 2
thereof reads as follows:
2. It is submitted that the Government as per Ext.P3 order transferred the petitioner as well as the Head of Department of Cardio Vascular and
Thoracic Surgery Department Dr. M.H. Abdul Rasheed to Kottayam and Kozhikode respectively, for administrative convenience. There were
large number of complaints against the functioning of the Cardio Vascular and Thoracic Surgery Department in the Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram. The Government have reports that the Head of Department Dr. M.H. Abdul Rasheed and the petitioner are in inimical terms
and they frequently quarrel each other in front of the patients and even in the intensive care unit. Allegations and counter allegations are being raised
by these persons. Complaints were also filed before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the Commission has called for a detailed
report with regard to the functioning of the Cardio Vascular and Thoracic Surgery Department.
4. Sri. K. Sandesh Raja, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents submitted that the petitioners were transferred out
not merely because of the incident which was enquired into by the Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram but due to the
frequent quarrels in which the petitioners are engaged. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the continuance of the petitioners in
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram has affected the smooth functioning of the hospital. He also made available to me a copy of the
report submitted by the Evaluation Committee consisting of the Director of Medical Education which refers to the professional rivalry between the
petitioners and their intolerance for each other. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were transferred
out solely in view of the death of a patient which on enquiry by the Superintendent was found to be not attributable to any act of negligence or
omission on their part and therefore the interim orders may be made absolute.
5. I have considered the rival contentions. The Government order directing transfer of the petitioners was issued on 19.3.2009. Pursuant to the
interim orders passed by this Court on 27.3.2009 and 31.3.2009 the petitioners in these writ petitions were re-posted in Medical College
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The pleadings disclose that the petitioners have never worked outside Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram though the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10287 of 2009 was away on leave without allowances for working in a private hospital,
for a period of five years. As Government servants, the petitioners are liable to be transferred and posted wherever the Government wants them to
serve. Government servants are liable to be transferred once in every three years. Even within a period of three years, it is open to the
Government/appointing authority to transfer the incumbents from their respective stations. Further, general transfer of Government servants is due
in April/May. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that these writ petitions can be disposed of by maintaining the interim orders passed in the
respective cases, without prejudice to the right of the Government to transfer the petitioners from Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram,
if the Government are of the opinion that their continued retention in the said hospital is detrimental to public interest and the efficient and smooth
functioning of the hospital.
I accordingly dispose of these writ petitions maintaining the interim orders but subject to the rider that nothing contained in the said orders will
stand in the way of the Government from deciding whether the petitioners should be transferred out while effecting general transfers for the current
year. I make it clear that I have not expressed the view that the petitioners should be transferred out and that it is for the Government/appointing
authority to take an appropriate decision in the matter having regard to the exigencies of service and administrative needs.