Madras High Court
The Director vs N.Subin on 15 April, 2021
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD) Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
and
CMP(MD).Nos.3745, 3746, 3747,3748 and 3751 of 2021
W.A(MD).No.838 of 2021
1. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission Tamil Nadu,
State Health Society,
359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.
4. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Edaicode, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants/Respondents
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
Vs
N.Subin ... Respondent
W.A(MD).No.839 of 2021
1. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission Tamil Nadu,
State Health Society,
359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.
4. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Agastheeswaram, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
V.Maheswari ... Respondent
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
W.A(MD).No.840 of 2021
1. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission Tamil Nadu,
State Health Society,
359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.
4. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Munchirai, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
R.Josephin Sabitha ... Respondent/Petitioner
W.A(MD).No.841 of 2021
1. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 600 006.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission Tamil Nadu,
State Health Society,
359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex,
Chennai - 600 006.
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.
4. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Killiyoor, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
A.R.Befi ... Respondent/Petitioner
W.A(MD).No.842 of 2021
1. The Director,
Public Health and Preventive Medicine,
Chennai - 600 006.
2. The Mission Director,
National Health Mission Tamil Nadu,
State Health Society,
359, Anna Salai, DMS Complex,
Chennai - 600 006.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.
4. The Block Medical Officer,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Kuttakuzhi, Kanyakumari District.
... Appellants/Respondents
Vs
P.Sudha ... Respondent/Petitioner
COMMON PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order dated 21.08.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.18262 to 18266 of
2018.
For Appellants : Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss,
Special Government Pleader
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vamanan
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J.]
Heard Mr.K.P.Krishnadoss, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the appellants and Mr.K.Vamanan, learned Counsel appearing
for the respondents.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
2. These appeals have been filed against the common order, dated
21.08.2018. With the consent of all the counsel, these petitions are taken up
for final disposal.
3. The respondents-writ petitioners are all staff members who were
recruited and posted in various Primary Health Centres in Kanyakumari
District. The first appellant took an administrative decision considering the
welfare of the patients and also to better equip the respondents-writ
petitioners, passed an order dated 31.07.2018, in which, the respondents-
writ petitioners were directed to undergo ten days foundation course on
Palliative Nursing at Pallium India, Kerala for ten days from 13.08.2018 to
23.08.2018.
4. It is rather surprising that the respondents-staff nurses instead of
grabbing the opportunity and undergoing the course in Palliative Nursing,
challenged the proceedings dated 31.07.2018, by filing the writ petitions.
The only ground on which the writ petitions were filed is that prior consent
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
was not obtained from the writ petitioners though consent was obtained
from two of the staff members. The learned Writ Court had allowed the writ
petitions solely on the said ground.
5. In our considered view, the decision taken by the first appellant in
passing order, dated 31.07.2018 is purely an administrative decision to
provide better health care and the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India should seldom interfere in such
administrative decisions taken by the experts unless it is shown that the
decision was utterly perverse or unsustainable in law. No such ground was
raised before the learned Writ Court nor before us. Therefore, we are of the
clear view that the Writ Court ought not to have interefered with the
proceedings of the first appellant dated 31.07.2018. The resultant position
would be to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ
Court.
6. Mr.K.Vamanan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-
writ petitioners submitted that pursuant to the order passed in the writ
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
petition, the respondents were not sent for training and continued to work in
the respective Primary Health Centres and a set of staff nurses have been
trained in Palliative Nursing and posted in Palliative Care Units in different
places in Kanyakumari District. Therefore, it is submitted that at present,
there is no need for the respondents to be sent for the training or to be
dislodged from the place where they are working. Upon hearing the said
submission, we are of the clear view that what the respondents-writ
petitioners had indirectly done, is to stall the orders of transfer under the
guise that they have been sent for palliative training without obtaining the
consent.
7. Be that as it may, we have already observed that the Writ Court
ought not to have interfered with the proceedings, dated 31.07.2018. In the
light of the above, these writ appeals are allowed and the order passed in the
writ petition is set aside and we leave it open to the first appellant to take a
decision in the matter as to whether the respondents should be sent for
palliative training or not and an informed decision will be taken by the
appellants in this regard.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
8. The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that some of the
respondents-writ petitioners have already been transferred to some other
Stations. This aspect may also be borne in mind by the first appellant while
taking an administrative decision. No costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (S.A.I.,J.)
15.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
Note : In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for
official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
pkn
W.A.(MD) Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)Nos.838 to 842 of 2021
15.04.2021
__________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
