Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.VIJAYAN versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.VIJAYAN v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 13534 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 16529 (24 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13534 of 2007(J)

1. M.VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner

2. K.A.VIJAYAKRISHNAN,

3. M.SARAVANAN,

4. M.K.MANOHARAN,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH,

4. SRI.P.SARATH KUMAR,

5. SMT.K.DEEPA,

For Petitioner :SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE

For Respondent :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :24/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


===============
W.P.(C) NO. 13534 OF 2007
====================

Dated this the 24th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and P12 and to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be promoted as Junior Health Inspector Grade II by virtue of their seniority, higher scale of pay and acquisition of Technical qualification. Similar grievance of another Field Worker was considered by this Court in WP(C) No.10189/07 and that case was disposed of by Ext.P15 judgment. In this case also the application of the petitioners were not considered for the reason that the authorities had considered only the applications received by them upto 20/3/06 and that the petitioners applications were received subsequent to that date. The said action of the respondents was found to be irregular in Ext.P15 judgment and relief was granted in the following terms. WPC 13534/07 If the applications upto a particular date is received and vacancies which arose till that date is filled up, from among those applicants, the same cannot be described as irregular. In this case, no cut off date was prescribed for receipt of applications and the respondents did not have a case that the vacancies that arose upto 20.3.2006 alone were filled up. In view of the above position,non-consideration of the petitioner's claim, while ordering Ext.P6 cannot be supported. It is declared so. The petitioner's claim for promotion shall be considered, in accordance with law, by the second respondent and he shall be placed in Ext.P6 in a place appropriate to his seniority and scale of pay. For promoting the petitioner, the beneficiaries of Ext.P6 need not be reverted. He may be promoted in one of the existing vacancies in the cadre of Junior Health Inspector Grade-II or in the vacancies that may first arise in future. But, he shall be given notional promotion with effect from the date of Ext.P6 and other consequential benefits payable, in accordance with law. This the second respondent shall do within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the light of Ext.P15 judgment, it is declared that the petitioners will also be entitled to similar reliefs. With the above declaration, this writ petition is disposed of.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp


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.