Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.A.LEELA, W/O.KUMARAN, 7/326 versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.A.LEELA, W/O.KUMARAN, 7/326 v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 25248 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 16110 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25248 of 2007(E)

1. P.A.LEELA, W/O.KUMARAN, 7/326,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY

3. THE DISTRICT ANIMAL HUSBANDRY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 25248 OF 2007 E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 20th August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3 order whereby the Government have rejected the application of the petitioner for regularisation of his service in the post of Casual Sweeper. Three reasons were assigned in the impugned order. One is that in the Kongad Veterinary Dispensary the post of Part-time Sweeper is a permanent post, and the second reason is that sweeping area is more than 100 sq. m. It is also stated that the petitioner has not continuously worked as a Casual Sweeper.

2. Counsel for the petitioner seriously disputed the first two reasons. In so far as the 3rd reason is concerned, even going by the grounds in the writ petition itself and the records, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that names of others have been entered in the records as if they have worked in the post of Casual Sweeper. Counsel for the petitioner would say that those are the petitioner's own children. In any case the fact remains that as per records others have worked and that W.P.(C) No. 25248 OF 2007 -2- goes against the claim of the petitioner. If the petitioner has not rendered continuous service, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits of Ext. P5 and therefore I do not find anything illegal in Ext. P3 and the writ petition stands dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-


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.