Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SRI.MATHEW BENEDICT K.A.,PROFESSOR,MAR versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SRI.MATHEW BENEDICT K.A.,PROFESSOR,MAR v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER - OP No. 3016 of 2002(H) [2007] RD-KL 12900 (12 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 3016 of 2002(H)

1. SRI.MATHEW BENEDICT K.A.,PROFESSOR,MAR
... Petitioner

2. SRI.K.U.ABRAHAM,PROFESSOR,MACE,

3. SRI.RAMAN NAMPOOTHIRY N.,PROFESSOR,

4. SRI.JOSEPHKUNJU PAUL.C.,ASST.PROFESSOR,

5. SRI.ROY N.MATHEWS,ASST.PROFESSOR,

6. SRI.M.A.ABRAHAM,ASST.PROFESSOR,

7. SRI.REJI MATHEW,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

8. SRI.DEVI PRASAD VARMA P.R.,

9. SRI.BINU C.YOLDOSE,ASST.PROFESSOR,

10. SRI.KEMTHOSE P.PAUL,ASST.PROFESSOR,

11. DR.C.J.JOSEPH,PROFESOR,MACE,

12. SRI.M.M.PAULOSE,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

13. SMT.B.GEETHA,ASST.PROFESOR,MACE,

14. SRI.PAUL ANTONY,PROFESOR,MACE,

15. SRI.M.L.PAUL,PROFESSOR,MACE,

16. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

17. SMT.SALICE PETER,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

18. SMT.SHEELA JOSEPH,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

19. SMT.ELIZABETH SEBASTIAN,ASST.PROFESSOR,

20. SRI.RAJAN.P.THOMAS,ASST.PROFESSOR,

21. SMT.ALICEKUTTY PHILIP,PROFESSOR,MACE,

22. SRI.PAULSON JOHN,ASST.PROFESOR,MACE,

23. SMT.LEENA THOMAS,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

Vs

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL

4. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM,

5. M.A.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.V.K.MUHAMMAD YOUSUF, SC, M.G.UTY.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :12/07/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.3016 OF 2002

Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P25. They also seek a declaration as to the validity of their promotions in question.

2. Admittedly, promotions of the petitioners have been made in terms of Ext.P1 and such promotions have been approved by the University. The plea in the counter affidavit that such promotions were given with retrospective effect, without prior concurrence of the Government, does not stand. The writ petition hence succeeds. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Ext.P25 is quashed and it is directed that all consequential benefits flowing out of the approval of the promotions of the petitioners shall be made available to them in accordance with law, in terms of the approval orders issued by the University. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.3016 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

12TH JULY, 2007.
=======================


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.