Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner has already undergone two major bypass surgery, therefore, if the petitioner is accommodated in the nearby place, it would be easy for the petitioner to carry on his medical treatment from the same hospital, namely, Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore. 2. The petitioner, while working as a Town Planning Officer Grade - II in Gobichettipalayam Municipality, has undergone two bypass surgeries. This fact was known to the respondent department, as he has already produced the relevant medical certificates for having suffered Coronary disorder. Having known the fact that the petitioner has undergone two bypass surgeries successively, instead of respecting their own G.O.Ms.No.10, P&AR Department, dated 17.01.1994, which states that Administrative General Transfers should be made only between April 1st and May 31st of the year, to avoid dislocation and hardships to the family of the government servants to accommodate their children in the schools and colleges, the respondent, without applying the guidelines stipulated in the said GO, wrongly issued the impugned order transferring the petitioner from Gobichettipalayam Municipality to Dharmapuri Municipality, only on the ground that the petitioner has completed three years period in Gobichettipalayam Municipality. The said impugned order, he contended, is contrary to the policy decision of the Government imposing ban orders on all general transfers, which is evident from the Government letter No.5304/S/2010-1, dated 13.04.2010. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that according to the GO as well as the letter No.5304/S/2010-1, dated 13.04.2010, all general transfers made on administrative reasons, should be passed only between 1st of April and 31st of May of every year. As the respondents have not followed the guidelines mentioned in the said GO, by terming the impugned order as per-se-illegal, sought for setting aside the impugned order. 3. Secondly, he further contended that though the petitioner has produced all the medical certificates and reports to the 1st respondent in support of his claim for cancellation of the impugned transfer order, but the same was not considered on merits. 4. 3. Secondly, he further contended that though the petitioner has produced all the medical certificates and reports to the 1st respondent in support of his claim for cancellation of the impugned transfer order, but the same was not considered on merits. 4. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner has got genuine complaint, that he had undergone two major bypass surgeries, it is left open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the 1st respondent by annexing all the medical certificates showing that he had undergone above mentioned two operations. In such circumstance, the 1st respondent will consider the case of the petitioner on humanitarian ground. 5. Recording the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court, without mentioning anything on the merits of the transfer order, directs the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.08.2010, sympathetically either in the same place or in any nearby place, by taking into account that the petitioner has already undergone two major operations, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.