Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C. AYYAPPAN versus D. VIJAYAMMA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C. AYYAPPAN v. D. VIJAYAMMA - WA No. 1502 of 2006(A) [2007] RD-KL 13878 (24 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1502 of 2006(A)

1. C. AYYAPPAN,
... Petitioner

2. XAVIER ROBAN,

Vs

1. D. VIJAYAMMA,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

4. T.V. SURESH CHANDRAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

For Respondent :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :24/07/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN &

ANTONY DOMINIC,JJ.

WRIT APPEAL Nos.1502/2006 and 1253/2006

Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Both these writ appeals are filed against the judgment dated 6.6.2006 in W.P.(C)No.25857/2003. The said writ petition was preferred by the first respondent seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P16; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the second respondent to pass consequential orders reverting the petitioner back to the post of Sub Inspector of Fisheries and to allow the petitioner to join duty in the Ministerial wing of the Fisheries Department as L.D.Clerk to enable the petitioner to get all the promotion benefits due to the petitioner with effect from the date of promotion of the immediate Junior in the cadre of U.D.Clerk, Head Clerk, Junior Superintendent, Senior Superintendent and other Higher posts and to grant to the petitioner all the other consequential service benefits within a time frame. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the second respondent to implement Ext.P11 orders and to pass consequential orders;

2. The petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing Writ Writ Appeal Nos.1502/06 and 1253/2006 :2: Petition No.18616/2003 which was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P13 judgment dated 16.6.2003 directing the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P12 in the light of Ext.P11 Government order. Director of Fisheries had passed Ext.P16 order dated 25.7.2003 rejecting the petitioner's request stating that he had approached the Government for review of the Government order, Ext.P11, dated 6.5.2003. The Director was not justified in passing such an order without awaiting for the Government decision. A learned single judge of this Court in W.P.(C)25857/2003 has directed the Director of Fisheries to repost the petitioner in the Ministerial wing taking note of Ext.P11 Government order. We find no illegality in this direction. We have been informed by the counsel for the appellants that they have challenged Ext.P11 order in WP.(C) 32619/2003. Writ petition lack merits. Dismissed.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

css / Writ Appeal Nos.1502/06 and 1253/2006 :3: Writ Appeal Nos.1502/06 and 1253/2006 :4:


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.