Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.G.RENUKA versus DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS & SEC.TOGOV

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.G.RENUKA v. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS & SEC.TOGOV - OP No. 8775 of 2001(T) [2007] RD-KL 2322 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 8775 of 2001(T)

1. V.G.RENUKA
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS & SEC.TOGOV
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.No. 8775 of 2001

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P10 reply. ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the name of the petitioner for inclusion in the select list for appointment to the post of Information Officer for the year 1995 and to include her name in that list and assign her rank above her immediate junior, Sri.K.Manoj Kumar and to grant her all consequential benefits. iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to revise Ext.P8 select list and to assign the petitioner rank above respondents 3 to 5. Ext.P10 is a communication addressed to the petitioner in purported compliance with Ext.P9 judgment. The stand taken in the impugned order is that despite several requests the petitioner did not submit the completed confidential reports. I am afraid the said stand cannot be fully appreciated. In the counter affidavit at paragraph 6 it is admitted that "the last set of confidential report and the detailed submission OP NO.8775/2001 submitted by the petitioner were considered by the Committee at its meeting held on 6-11-1999 and they found them satisfactory and agreed to include her name in the select list for 1999 as 5th person in the list below Sri.G.Haridasan Unnithan and above Sri.M.A.Vincent." According to the petitioner the submission referred to in the counter affidavit is Ext.P6 dated 14-7-1999. A perusal of Ext.P6 would show that the petitioner had submitted the confidential reports for the entire period in the category of Assistant Editor from 1-1-1991 to 1996. If the same could be acted for inclusion in the list for 1999 I find no reason why the same could not be acted upon for the vacancies which arise in 1995. In Sobha Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2004 (2) KLT 755 this court has already held as follows:-

"A combined reading of Sub-r.(4) and sub-r. (4a) would clearly show that what is required is only the Confidential Reports of the Officer concerned for a period of three years preceding the long leave. There is no insistence anywhere in the Rules that the Report should be prepared at the relevant period. If the Reports are not available since the incumbent did not take the required steps at the relevant time, there is some justification in not considering the case. In any case, only if it is not possible for an Officer to have three years OP NO.8775/2001 Confidential Reports, there arises a question of consideration of one year period mentioned in R.4

(a)." All that apart it is also seen that this court had already issued a direction in Ext.P9 judgment to consider the matter by the DPC since it is the DPC which has to revise the list. I quash Ext.P10. There will be a direction to the second respondent to convene an adhoc DPC, consider the confidential reports of the petitioner submitted by her as per Ext.P6 for the entire period from 1991 onwards and take appropriate action for inclusion of her name subject to her suitability in the 1995 list. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P.NO.8775/2001

JUDGMENT

31st January, 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.