Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.D.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is now working as an Assistant Surgeon in Erode Government Hospital seeks to challenge the Circular dated 21.01.2013 issued by the second respondent viz., Directorate of Medical Education. Pursuant to the letter received from the State Government dated 18.01.2013, the second respondent decided to conduct transfer counselling to fill up vacant post of Medical Officers in the cadre of Tutors/Senior Residents/Assistant Professors in various Medical College and Hospitals under the control of Directorate of Medical Education. The Government also granted relaxation from the eligibility condition of serving minimum period of one year in the present station. Pursuant to the permission granted by the State Government, by the impugned Circular, it was informed that the Medical Officers who are willing to participate in the counselling should send particulars on or before 28.01.2013. In the instructions for the Transfer Counselling, it was stated that PG qualified Medical officers (DM/M.Ch/MD/MS/Diploma) will be considered only for that concerned speciality. The counselling will be conducted as per the seniority viz., Medical Officers from Chennai city will be on the CML Seniority and Medical Officers from Mofussil will be on Station Seniority. The counselling was fixed on 06.02.2013. It is at this juncture the petitioner has filed the writ petition. 3. When the matter came up on 31.01.2013, this Court directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions. The learned Additional Government Pleader produced a letter written by the State Government dated 30.01.2013, wherein, they decided to postpone the counselling to 22.02.2013. Hence, the matter was adjourned to 18.02.2013. However, Mr.D.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the Directorate of Medical Education re-fixed the counsellling to be held on 22.02.2013, the matter should be taken up immediately. Hence, the matter was listed for hearing. 4. The learned Advocate General appearing for the Directorate of Medical Education informed that the entire counselling process is based upon the Government Order issued in G.O.(2D)No.131, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 20.11.2007. By the said GO, revised guidelines were issued with reference to the transfer counselling. In the Annexure to the said Government Order, the periodicity of counselling is set out, which is as follows:- "1.Periodicity of Counselling: 1.1. By the said GO, revised guidelines were issued with reference to the transfer counselling. In the Annexure to the said Government Order, the periodicity of counselling is set out, which is as follows:- "1.Periodicity of Counselling: 1.1. Counselling for transfer within the Directorate shall be held once in a year during May. 1.2. Counselling for inter-Directorate transfer shall be held once in a year during June. However, this condition is not applicable for the transfer of Staff Nurses. 1.3 Counselling for the post of Nurses for transfer and promotion shall be conducted jointly by the Director of Medical Education and the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services. " 5. The learned Advocate General argued that since the Government maintained three separate streams viz., Directorate of Medical Education, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine and Directorate of Medical and Rural Health services. Initially, counselling in respect of vacancies in medical colleges and hospitals is done only within the Directorate of Medical Education stream and only when there is no Medical Officers available in that stream, Medical Officers from other Directorates will be considered. The petitioner voluntarily left the Directorate of Medical Education to join the Directorate of Medical and Rural Heath Services. In fact, he has also given an undertaking after completing his Post Graduate education. The undertaking given by him reads as follows:- "I Dr.V.Ezhil Sundar on completion of my Post Graduate Course (DM/MCh) at Kilpauk Medical College opting for release to Director of Medical and Rural Health Services / Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine side, inspite of vacancies shown in my speciality under Director of Medical Education side. I am also aware that I am foregoing my teaching experience by opting for the above posting." 6. Though Mr.D.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to ward off by stating that this undertaking was taken out of coercion and it should not be taken as he has permanently relinquished being the member of Directorate of Education. However, it is unnecessary to go into the said issue as the undertaking given by the petitioner is not in dispute. 7. However, it is unnecessary to go into the said issue as the undertaking given by the petitioner is not in dispute. 7. The learned Advocate General also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner was invited for counselling on 18.07.2012 in respect of three vacancies in the Department of Urology in the Directorate of Medical Education, two posts at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College at Salem and one at Thoothukudi Medical Counselling, Thoothukudi. However, in the counselling, the petitioner on his own reason did not chose to opt to serve in any one of the institution. This fact was also not set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and this action of the petitioner is not welcomed by this Court. 8. In any event, the very counselling itself is based upon the guidelines issued by the State Government and that guidelines gives first priority to candidates working in the Directorate of Medical Education. Since the petitioner voluntarily opted to leave the said service and even after leaving the service, he did not opt for any of the three vacancies, it is not a fit case where the petitioner can be allowed to question the very basis of counselling itself. 9. The writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.