Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.PADEMALAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.PADEMALAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR - WP(C) No. 18397 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 10383 (15 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18397 of 2007(M)

1. P.PADEMALAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

For Petitioner :SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :15/06/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C) No.18397 of 2007-M

Dated this the 15th day of June, 2007.



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a practising lawyer. Though, he was included in the panel forwarded by the District Judge to the District Collector, for appointment as Government Pleader in Alappuzha Courts, the District Collector did not appoint him. The petitioner submits, he is a member of Scheduled Caste. Ext.P4 amendment to the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) And Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 provides that the Government shall try to give adequate representation to members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Communities in the matter of appointment of Government Law Officers. In view of the above position, the petitioner should have been considered for appointment, it is submitted. While appointing a Government Pleader, one of the prime consideration is the confidence of the Government in the concerned lawyer. No doubt, he should be a competent person. But, the Government may not repose its confidence in all the competent lawyers. If the Government or the District Collector has chosen not to appoint the petitioner, this Court cannot interfere with the same, under Article 226 of the WPC No.18397 of 2007 2 Constitution of India. The satisfaction of the appointing authority regarding the competence cannot be lightly interfered with. Further, there is no mandatory provision for giving reservation to the members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. May be, having regard to the special nature of the appointment, the Rules only provided for trying to give representation to them. The said provision does not create any indefeasible right in the petitioner or create a corresponding duty in the appointing authority. Therefore, no direction could be issued by this Court, to appoint the petitioner as the Government Pleader. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails, and it is dismissed. 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.