Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBASH A. PAINKULAM versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUBASH A. PAINKULAM v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 24140 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 15335 (9 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 24140 of 2007(W)

1. SUBASH A. PAINKULAM,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,

3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.BENOY THOMAS

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :09/08/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 24140 OF 2007

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

In view of the limited prayer made by the petitioner, I do not deem it necessary to refer to the various contentions raised by him in the writ petition at this stage.

2. Petitioner is stated to be working as HSST (Senior) in Computer Science/Computer Application in St. Sebastian's H.S.S. At Kuttikkadu under the management of respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed in the school as HSST (Junior) with effect from September 1, 2000.

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that though he was placed at Rank No.1 in the Select list, he had been accommodated against the 3rd post as the juniormost. This resulted in getting his promotion as HSST (Senior) late. The contention of the petitioner is that he should have been appointed as HSST (Senior) with effect from September 1, 2001 itself.

4. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with any of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage in view of the limited prayer WPC NO.24140/07 Page numbers made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to take a decision on Ext.P4 expeditiously. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that petitioner, the Corporate Manager and the other teachers who are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondent No.1 for compliance.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.24140/07 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

WPC NO.24140/07 Page numbers 1ST MARCH, 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.