Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

B.PRASANNAKUMAR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


B.PRASANNAKUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 20221 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 11683 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20221 of 2007(G)

1. B.PRASANNAKUMAR,
... Petitioner

2. A.B.PUSHPADHARAN,

3. R.LALU,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,

3. A.NAJUMUDHEEN,

4. K.M.CHANDHREN,

5. V.P.BALAKRISHNAN,

6. THULASIDHARAN PILLAI,

7. A.MOOSA,

8. K.P.MOHANADASAN,

9. M.MAJEED,

10. K.SASINDHARAN,

11. G.SOMANATHA PILLA,

12. M.VIJAYAKUMAR,

13. K.T.PUSHPAN,

14. P.ASHOKAN,

15. JAMES MANUEL.C.M.,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.G.MANOJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P.(C). No.20221 of 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this court challenging Ext.P8 proceedings and also the accompanying seniority list, Ext.P9, of Driller/Driller Mechanic as on 1.3.2005. As per the earlier seniority list, the petitioners were assigned seniority in the said cadre above respondents 3 to 15. The basis of preparation of the seniority list was the date of joining duty in the said post. But, recently, when the draft seniority list was published, several persons filed objections stating that seniority should be fixed with reference to the date of first effective advice as provided in Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. The said contention was upheld and the seniority list was revised basing on the date of advice, instead of the date of joining duty. The petitioners, who joined duty earlier, though juniors in the advice list, are aggrieved by the present re-arrangement of the seniority list. So, this writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9. W.P.(C). No.20221 of 2007

2. The main ground of attack is that there is considerable delay in revising the seniority list and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to sit back.

3. The petitioners have raised only the above technical contention. On merits, they do not have any case. The Government themselves, at the time of finalisation of the list, have decided to correct the mistake committed by them. I think, this court is not justified in interfering with the said decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge


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.