Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

G. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


G. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR v. THE STATE OF KERALA - OP No. 4922 of 2001(J) [2006] RD-KL 45 (3 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 4922 of 2001(J)

1. G.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :03/07/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

O.P.NO. 4922 OF 2001

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 order by which his request for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector against the vacancies that arose in the erstwhile Eastern Range and Ernakulam Range was rejected. The petitioner also challenges Exts.P5 and P6 promotion lists of Head Constables as Assistant Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors as Sub Inspectors respectively.

2. The petitioner was initially recruited as Police Constable and posted at the Local Police Station in Alappuzha District with effect from 5.4.1973 and on the basis of seniority, he was promoted as Head Constable with effect from 30.3.1991. Before 1993, the police administrative set up comprised of three ranges, namely Southern Range, Central Range and Northern Range. Districts of Thiruvananthapuram , Kollam, Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha came under Southern Range, Ernakulam, Kottayam, Idukki and Thrissur Districts came under Central Range and Northern Range comprised of Palakkad, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Wynad, Kannur and Kasaragod Districts. On re-organisation of the O.P.NO.4922/2001 2 ranges, a new range, namely, Eastern Range was formed on 5.8.1993 comprising of Kottayam and Idukki Districts of Central Range and Alappuzha District of Southern Range. At the time of re-organisation of the ranges, all the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors working in the respective Districts were allowed to exercise option either to remain in the old range or to come over to the new range. The petitioner opted to remain in the Southern Range. On the basis of the options, seniority list of Head Constables who opted Eastern Range was finalised in which the name of the petitioner was not included as he had opted to remain in the Southern Ranges. Later, on 1.10.1997 the Police Ranges were again re-organised as Thiruvananthapuram Range, Ernakulam Range , Thrissur Range and Kannur Range. Alappuzha District was included in Ernakulam Range and the erstwhile Southern Range became Thiruvananthapuram Range. Range was taken as the unit for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and State was taken as the unit for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.

3. The petitioner had opted to continue in the Southern Range which was re-organised as Thirivananthapuram Range and hence he was superseded by his juniors in Ernakulam Range while promotion was effected to the post of O.P.NO.4922/2001 3 Assistant Sub Inspectors. In the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that since the petitioner's option to continue in Southern Range was accepted, his name was not included in the Range seniority list of Head Constables who had opted to go over to Eastern Range. The petitioner joined as Police Constable in Alappuzha District and it was then that Alappuzha District was included in the Eastern Range. After re-organisation, Alappuzha District was included in Ernakulam Range. Hence, it is only proper for the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. In the above circumstances, Ext.P9 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a reasonable time, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Though the petitioner has challenged Exts.P5 and P6, this Court is not inclined to quash the same at this distance of time. But, it is made clear that the above lists will be subject to the final decision taken in Ext.P8 representation. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

O.P.NO.4922/2001 4 sp/ O.P.NO.4922/2001 5

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

O.P.NO.4922/2001

JUDGMENT

3RD JULY, 2006 O.P.NO.4922/2001 6


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.