K PRASANNA, W/O KUTTAPPAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION; PHILIP MATHEW, EEG TECHNICIAN; PRINCIPAL; SECRETARY (HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the writ petitioner. She is a Rehabilitation Technician working under the 1st respondent. From Calicut Medical College now she has been transferred by the impugned order Ext.P4 to Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. The said order reads as follows.

(2.) Challenging the above quoted order, the Writ Petition was filed. The grounds taken in the Writ Petition were that the appellant was innocent and her rival, Mr.Philip Mathew, was responsible for the happenings mentioned in the above quoted order. But, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the appellant to move the Government pointing out her grievances against Ext.P4, which is an order passed by the Director of Medical Education. Dis-satisfied with the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she is innocent and Mr.Philip Mathew alone was responsible for the happenings dealt with in Ext.P4. Going by Ext.P4, we notice that the view taken by the Director of Medical Education is that both of them are equally responsible. If the appellant has a case that the findings in Ext.P4 are factually incorrect, her remedy lies in moving the Government. At this stage, the Writ Court can only proceed on the basis that what is stated in Ext.P4 is correct.