Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.CHANDRA BABU, WORKING AS CHICK SEXER versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.CHANDRA BABU, WORKING AS CHICK SEXER v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 25743 of 2007(M) [2007] RD-KL 16439 (23 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25743 of 2007(M)

1. S.CHANDRA BABU, WORKING AS CHICK SEXER
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,

3. PRODUCTION MANAGER, CENTRAL HATCHERY,

4. K.B.VENUGOPALAN, CHICK SEXING EXPERT,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :23/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 25743 OF 2007 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 23rd August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is working in the post of Chick Sexer. She seeks to quash Ext. P7 whereby the 4th respondent is provisionally promoted as Senior Instructor. According to the petitioner, his seniority and merit has been overlooked in the process.

2. From Ext. P7 it is evident that the vacancy in the category of Senior Instructor was internally notified and applications are invited from qualified persons working in the category of Chick Sexing Expert/Junior Instructor for appointment as Senior Instructor. It also says that there were 4 applicants and the petitioner admits that he was one of the applicants. It is in the selection that followed that the 4th respondent was found to be possessing the required qualifications.

3. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has any claim superior to that of the 4th respondent. Apart from that there is also no material W.P.(C) No.25743 OF 2007 -2- to conclude that the 4th respondent was unqualified to be appointed. Therefore, in the absence of any such material I see no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition will stand 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.