Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BINOY K.DIVAKARAN, S/O.K.K.DIVAKARAN versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BINOY K.DIVAKARAN, S/O.K.K.DIVAKARAN v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 30797 of 2006(N) [2006] RD-KL 3299 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30797 of 2006(N)

1. BINOY K.DIVAKARAN, S/O.K.K.DIVAKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),

3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

4. THE CHAIRMAN, K.P.S.C.,

For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.SUBHASH

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 30797 OF 2006

Dated this the 13th December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a candidate included in the supplementary list of Scheduled Caste for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. The grievance of the petitioner is that one NJD vacancy which arose during the currency of the list was not promptly reported by the KSEB and that has caused problems for the petitioner. It is also contended that the vacancy was subsequently reported by the KSEB on 30.10.2006 and notwithstanding the validity of the list, the Commission refused to advise the petitioner who was the next candidate to be advised for appointment.

2. Counsel for the Commission submits that the petitioner could not be advised for appointment since the main list had been exhausted on 19.9.2006 and the vacancy reported on 30.10.2006 for the advice of a candidate from the supplementary list was of no use. It is also submitted that in the light of the decision of the apex Court in Nair Service Society v. District Officer, Kerala Public Service Commission {2003(3) KLT 1126}, the supplementary list cannot be operated after candidates from the main list have WPC 30797/2006 2 been exhausted. The petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.