Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N.P.PRAKASAN, S/O.K.K.PUSHKARAN versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N.P.PRAKASAN, S/O.K.K.PUSHKARAN v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED - WP(C) No. 12228 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 10102 (12 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 12228 of 2007(E)

1. N.P.PRAKASAN, S/O.K.K.PUSHKARAN,
... Petitioner

2. T.G.RAMESH, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT,

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent

2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF KERALA,

3. THE SECRETARY TO ADVOCATE GENERAL,

4. SMT.PATHUMMA.K.M., OFFICE

5. SMT.G.VALSALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :12/06/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C) No. 12288 of 2007-E

Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are Selection Grade Assistants working under the second respondent. They are included in Ext.P1 DPC list of officers eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officers. Respondents 4 and 5 are Office Superintendent and Selection Grade Confidential Assistant respectively. The 4th respondent is claiming promotion under the Typist quota and the 5th respondent under the quota for Confidential Assistants, to the post of Section Officer. The vacancies in that post have to be filled up in the ratio of 15:1:1 between Assistants, Typists and Confidential Assistants. According to the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5, though graduates, they have to clear the suitability test held by the PSC for getting promotion. In support of this submission reliance is placed on the Note under Rule 3 of Ext.P2 Special Rules. Initially this was the view maintained by the competent authority, as evident from Ext.P4. Now, the said stand has been changed and Ext.P6 has been issued stating that Typists and Confidential Assistants need not pass the suitability test, provided they are graduates. So, the petitioners challenge Ext.P6 and also the WPC No. 12228 of 2007 2 consequential proceedings, Ext.P8, by which respondents 4 and 5 were deputed for training as Assistants for a period of one year so that they can be posted as Section Officers. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:

i). call for the records relating to Exhibits P-6 and P-8 quash the originals of the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. ii). issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Ist, 2nd and 3rd respondents to promote the petitioners as Section Officers from Exhibit P-1 as against the vacancies on 1-4-2007 and 1-5-2007. iii). issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Ist, 2nd and 3rd respondents to refrain from promoting the 4th and 5th respondents as Section Officers in preference to the petitioners.

2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that for graduates, suitability test is not necessary and they are fully qualified for being considered for appointment.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The contention of the petitioners that graduates among Typists/Confidential Assistants should also clear the eligibility test held by the PSC is plainly untenable, in view of the Note under Rule 3 of Ext.P2. A proper construction of the said Rule would show that graduates among them WPC No. 12228 of 2007 3 need not clear the eligibility test. So, the challenge against Ext.P6 is repelled. The fact that the competent authority has earlier taken a stand in Ext.P4 that they should also clear the test will not bind anyone. In the result, the challenge against the consequential proceedings, Ext.P8 is also repelled.

4. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with the rank in Ext.P1, in the light of Ext.P2 Special Rules. So, the second respondent is directed to consider their claim for promotion as Section Officers. But, this will not affect the rights of respondents 4 and 5 or those coming under the Typists/Confidential Assistants, to claim promotion for the quota set apart for the. If they are eligible hands, their claim shall also be considered for appointment, according to their turn as per the ratio 15:1:1, prescribed in Ext.P2. The direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion shall be complied with and orders passed, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,

JUDGE.

MS


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.