Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.HAREENDRAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.HAREENDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 1759 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 1244 (16 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1759 of 2007(H)

1. T.HAREENDRAN
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

For Petitioner :SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.)

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :16/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 1759 OF 2007

Dated this the 16th January, 2007.



JUDGMENT

Heard Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, standing counsel for the second respondent and Govt. Pleader for first respondent.

2. It is stated that the petitioner was employed on provisional basis as an H.R worker before 1998, and therefore, his case ought to have been considered based on the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority {1990(2) KLT 673}. Materials produced on record show that the above request of the petitioner was not allowed by the Water Authority and the Managing Director of the second respondent had passed Ext.P6 order informing him that his case cannot be considered for regularisation in service. Ext.P6 was passed on 19.1.1998. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner approached the Government. As per Ext.P8 Government letter dated 13.1.2003 the petitioner was informed that the request made by the petitioner cannot be granted. Long thereafter he filed Ext.P9 representation before the Managing Director of the second respondent on 4.7.2005 requesting to engage him atleast temporarily since all those who had worked along with him prior to 1990 are WPC 1759/2007 2 enjoying the benefit of regularisation in service.

3. The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition include a prayer to quash Exts.P6 and P8 orders.

4. The dates on which the impugned orders were passed clearly show that the petitioner has not been vigilant in challenging the same. Several years have lapsed since the date of issuance of those orders. The petitioner is guilty of laches and on that sole ground this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. No relief can be granted in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing to the second respondent to consider Ext.P9, since the filling up of the posts on a temporary basis also shall conform to certain norms. The second respondent, can make temporary appointments only the basis of a list of candidates supplied by the Employment Exchange. If the petitioner's name is sponsored by the Employment Exchange, certainly, his entitlement shall be considered by the competent authority. Writ petition fails and 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.