Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANESH M.D. versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MANESH M.D. v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 19972 of 2007(C) [2007] RD-KL 12496 (9 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19972 of 2007(C)

1. MANESH M.D.,
... Petitioner

2. MOHAMMED SUBAIR POTTACHOLA,

3. ABDURAHIMAN,

4. ABDUL HAMEED P.,

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :09/07/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.19972 OF 2007

Dated this the 9th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners had availed of leave without allowance to undergo B.Ed./L.T.T.C. Exts.P1, P3, P5 and P7 are stated to be the orders issued by the Government granting leave to the petitioners.

2. Ext.P1 shows that petitioner no.1 was granted leave with effect from June 6, 2002 to March 31, 2003. Petitioner no.2 was granted leave with effect from July 8, 2003 to March 31, 2004 and petitioner no.3 was granted leave from June 5, 2001 to March 30, 2002. Petitioner no.4, was sanctioned leave from July 8, 2003 to March 31, 2004.

3. Petitioners take exception to the condition incorporated in the orders sanctioning leave to them, to the effect that the period of leave will not count for increment etc. It is contended by the petitioners that the above rider is per se illegal and unsustainable, particularly in view of the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No.26782/06 dated, W.P.(C)No.19972 OF 2007 February 22, 2006. A copy of the judgment is on record as Ext.P10. It is also brought to my notice that in Deepika V. State of Kerala (2007 (1) KLT 71) a similar view has been taken by this court.

4. However, Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10 judgment may not come to the rescue of the petitioners, since the orders sanctioning leave to them were issued after deletion of the third proviso under Rule 33 (b) (2) in part I KSR. But petitioners point out that they had availed of leave and completed the course prior to the amendment though leave was formally sanctioned later. Anyhow, this is a matter to be considered by the Government.

5. In the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to take a decision in the matter in the light of Ext.P10 judgment and other judicial pronouncements. Orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that petitioners shall be afforded sufficient W.P.(C)No.19972 OF 2007 opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before the respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


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.