Judgment : 1. The petitioner is a Diploma Holder in Opthometry. He had his name registered on the role of the third respondent in the year 1995. In Sivagangai District, Government Medical Hospital, there arose a vacancy for the post of Refractionist in the year 2010. The said vacancy was filled up by transferring the fifth respondent by the order of the first respondent in Dis. No. 61677/E5/3/2010 dated 7.10.2010. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and I have also perused the records carefully. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not working as a Refractionist in any Government Service. Therefore, he has no locus standi to question the transfer of the fifth respondent as Refractionist from Namakkal to Government Medical Hospital, Sivagangai. 4. Nextly, it is alleged in the body of the affidavit filed in support of this petition that the petitioner's name was not sponsored, in stead, the third respondent has sponsored the name of the fourth respondent to fill up the above said vacancy. The petitioner, thus, is aggrieved by non-sponsoring of his name. If it is his grievance in the writ petition, he should have challenged the appointment of the fourth respondent. 5. In the grounds it is stated that the fourth respondent has been appointed at the age of 44. Assuming that the fourth respondent has been appointed at the age of 44, since her appointment is not challenged, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the said ground. Since the petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the transfer of the fifth respondent, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to him in this writ petition. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.