Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

R.RAVI versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


R.RAVI v. STATE OF KERALA - WA No. 142 of 2003 [2007] RD-KL 16755 (5 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 142 of 2003()

1. R.RAVI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. KUNJI MOHAMMED, A.R.A.S.I.,

5. KAMMUNI, A.R.M.C. NO.3868,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :05/09/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.K.BASHEER, JJ

W.A.142/2003

Dated this the 5th day of September, 2007



JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan, J

writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P2, P5 and P6 to the extent they are inconsistent with Ext.P1 judgment and Rules 28(b)(10) and 28(bb) of KS and SSR for preparation of seniority and select lists of ARHCs in Trissur Police Range and also for other consequential reliefs.

2. Petitioner joined duty in the District Armed Reserve, Palakkad on 10.2.1993. He was promoted as Head Constable on 8.4.1997 based on the seniority in the District Armed Reserve, Palakkad. Seniority of Head Constable in the Trissur Range consists of the Districts of Trissur, Malappuram and Palakkad and the petitioner who became a Head Constable in District Armed Reserve on 8.4.1997 became Junior to the respondents 4 and 5. Fourth respondent became Head Constable on 30.12.1993 and fifth respondent became on 7.5.1995. Based on the Range wise seniority, fourth respondent was promoted as Armed Reserve Assistant Sub Inspector W.A.142/2003 2 on 22.2.1999. Fifth respondent was promoted to that post on 11.10.1999. Petitioner was promoted as Armed Reserve Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 2003. Respondents 4 and 5 had become Head Constables earlier than the petitioner depending upon their seniority in their respective Districts. The seniority of the petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Head Constable could be taken on the basis of seniority which he got at District Unit. For promotion to the post of Armed Reserve Head Constable, the District is treated as a separate unit. Petitioner therefore can be treated only as junior to respondents 4 and 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Writ appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge A.K.BASHEER Judge mrcs


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.