Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJEEV.P.B. versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJEEV.P.B. v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 26054 of 2005(B) [2007] RD-KL 16436 (23 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26054 of 2005(B)

1. RAJEEV.P.B.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS

For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :23/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

W.P ( C) Nos. 26054, 29062 & 27639 of 2005

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The prayer in these writ petitions is to declare that the respondents are bound to make promotions of Last Grade Servants (Peons) to the post of Typist Gr.II pursuant to Exhibit P5 on the basis of the qualifications as laid down in the Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service Special Rules. The petitioners are last grade Servants aspiring for promotion to the post of Typists Gr.II. Government Order dated 8.12.2004 Computer Word processing has been prescribed as an essential qualification for the posts of Typist in Public Service appointments. It is the complaint of the petitioners that before they could acquire the additional qualification as laid down in Exhibit -P2, recruitment process was initiated by notification dated 12.7.2005 It is in the aforesaid background that writ petitions have been filed. At the stage of admission this Court interim orders were passed to consider the case of the petitioners. But thereafter, the order was modified directing W.P ( C) No. 26054 of 2005 & conn. cases 2 that vacancies shall not be filled up except with the permission of this court. The aforesaid interim order was thereafter modified by order dated 23.2.2006. Against the interim order though an appeal was filed that was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed by the Apex Court by dismissing S.L.P. No. 6950 of 2006 dated 28.4.2006.

2. When the cases came up for orders before this court, counsel for the petitioner sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the representations filed by them.

3. I have heard the counsel on both sides. The request of the petitioner is not opposed by the learned Government Pleader also. In the aforesaid situation, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representations filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As already noted, by virtue of the interim order, this court had prevented the filling up of the vacancies notified and the said order will continue until orders are passed as above. Before orders are passed all parties W.P ( C) No. 26054 of 2005 & conn. cases 3 shall be given notice and an opportunity of hearing. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and these contentions are left open.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

ma W.P ( C) No. 26054 of 2005 & conn. cases 4

K.THANKAPPAN,J

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

ORDER

25th May, 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.