Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANIL K., S/O. KERALA VARMA versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ANIL K., S/O. KERALA VARMA v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 2464 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 1642 (22 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2464 of 2007(R)

1. ANIL K., S/O. KERALA VARMA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

3. THE DIRECTOR,

4. P.S. VINOD,

5. J. GOPINATHAN NAIR,

6. RAJAN,

7. C.K. SUBRAHMANIAM,

8. S.G.SURESH,

9. T.V. RADHAKRISHNAN,

10. T.T.VIMAL KUMAR,

11. M.P. GOPALAKRISHNAN,

12. G.BABU RAJAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :22/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K. DENESAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 2464 OF 2007 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 22nd January, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a member of the Panchayat Common Service. The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Grade III Overseer. According to him, respondents 4 to 12 who have been promoted to the post of Grade II Overseer do not have the requisite qualification, and therefore, their promotion to the higher category overlooking the seniority and qualification of the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. The party respondents were promoted on an earlier occasion to the post of Overseer but were reverted subsequently. The order of promotion marked as Ext. P2 is sought to be set aside. It is seen that the petitioner has represented his grievance before respondents 1 and 2 by filing Ext. P7 and P6 representations respectively. Detailed contentions have been raised in Ext. P7 filed before the 1st respondent. Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that if the 1st respondent looks into the grievance of the petitioner as highlighted in Ext. P7, it will be relief for the petitioner at this stage. WPC No.2464 /2007 -2-

2. Heard the Govt. Pleader also.

3. In the circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext. P7 on merits after issuing notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 12 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for due compliance. K.K. DENESAN

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.