Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.K. SUSEELAMMA versus KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.K. SUSEELAMMA v. KERALA LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD - WP(C) No. 10287 of 2005(Y) [2006] RD-KL 1394 (25 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10287 of 2005(Y)

1. K.K.SUSEELAMMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA LIESTOCK DEVELOPMENT BOARD
... Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.C.T.RAVIKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :25/10/2006

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10287 OF 2005 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 25th October, 2006



J U D G M E N T

It is stated that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Personal Secretary to the Managing Director of the respondent-Board. It is stated that she is the seniormost Confidential Assistant and has got the right to be promoted against the vacancy that arose on 31-7- 2003. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a decision was taken to place the case of the petitioner for the consideration of the selection committee, but thereafter, nothing is known as to what transpired. Feeling aggrieved by the delay in considering her case for promotion, this writ petition has been filed.

2. Ext. P3 is a representation filed by the petitioner before the Managing Director of the respondent requesting to promote her to the post of Personal Secretary to the Managing Director with retrospective effect from 1-8-2003. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vacancy in the higher post has WPC No. 10287/2006 -2- been filled up by the respondents appointing one C.V. Balachandran, but the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Incidentally it is also stated that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and she is eligible to be considered having regard to the exemption from test qualification she is entitled for.

3. I feel that the respondents have got a duty to take expeditious decision on the request made by the petitioner. It appears that unless a time limit is fixed there is likelihood of the consideration of the case of the petitioner getting delayed further. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner as highlighted in Ext. P3, take appropriate decision and communicate the same within one month on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment. K.K. DENESAN

JUDGE

jan/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.