Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARADA AMMA K., D/O. CHEKKINI NAIR versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SARADA AMMA K., D/O. CHEKKINI NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY - WP(C) No. 5598 of 2007(N) [2007] RD-KL 3779 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5598 of 2007(N)

1. SARADA AMMA K., D/O. CHEKKINI NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 5598 OF 2007

Dated this the 20th February, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner was one of the candidates who participated in the interview held by the District Medical Officer of Health, Kozhikode for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweeper. Ext.P4 select list was prepared and published in February 2005. The petitioner felt that a fair deal was not given to her by the District Medical Officer of Health and for that reason she was not included in Ext.P4 list. She raised the contention that despite her eligibility and superior qualifications she was sidelined and some others who could exert influence on the District Medical Officer have been placed in Ext.P4.

2. When the petitioner approached this Court with the above grievance this Court directed that the issue to be gone into being one relating to questions of fact it would be proper that the petitioner approaches the first respondent for reliefs. Now it appears that after considering the facts in dispute, the Government have taken the decision that there was nothing irregular or illegal in the conduct of the interview and that the petitioner's grievance is not based on correct facts.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 is WPC 5598/2007 2 ex facie illegal.

4. I am unable to accept the above contention. There is no case for the petitioner that any statutory rule was violated in the conduct of the interview. The only allegation is that while conducting the interview the District Medical Officer did not consider the petitioner as a person possessing better merit than others who were interviewed along with the petitioner. It will be difficult for this Court while exercising the power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India to resolve a dispute of this nature based on the affidavit of the petitioner alone. The Government which is at the helm of affairs on the administrative side, after calling for the records, was satisfied that no irregularity had in fact happened. I do not find any valid ground to interfere with Exts.P4 or P7. That apart, without impleading the candidates included in Ext.P4 it will not be possible to render a decision as prayed for by the petitioner viz., to quash Ext.P4. On that ground also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.