Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.V.BABU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.V.BABU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 627 of 2007(Y) [2007] RD-KL 3808 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 627 of 2007(Y)

1. V.V.BABU,
... Petitioner

2. A.K.VISWAMBHARAN,

3. M.M.STALIN,

4. P.P.VENU,

5. T.C.AYYAPPAN,

6. K.C.HARIHARAN,

Vs

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

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

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.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 627 OF 2007 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 20th February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are Sub Inspectors of Police. It is contended that they have not been assigned the correct date of promotion as Sub Inspectors of Police on regularisation of similarly situated incumbents in that category and consequently, they are not assigned proper seniority in the provisional seniority list published by the 3rd respondent vide Ext. P6. Petitioners 1 to 5 have filed objections against the provisional seniority list as discernible from Exts. P9 to P12 and P7. Petitioner No. 6 has not filed any objection. Pending consideration of the objections and pending finalisation of Ext. P6 seniority list, the 3rd respondent has prepared Ext. P8 promotion list for promoting Sub Inspectors of Police as Circle Inspectors of Police. It is the contention of the petitioners that juniors find place in Ext. P8 and the petitioners have been overlooked for no fault of them.

2. In order to go deeper into the above contention it is necessary that the 3rd respondent shall consider the merit of the objections raised by petitioners 1 to 5 in the representations filed by them as stated above WPC No.627 /2006 -2- and shall come out with the final seniority list as early as possible. Accordingly, there shall be an order directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exts. P9 to P12 and P7 on merits and in accordance with law, if necessary after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners 1 to 5 and any other Sub Inspector of Police who may be affected by the decision of the 3rd respondent and finalise Ext. P6 provisional seniority list within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Depending upon the order to be passed on the above objections as also the ranks to be assigned or re-assigned to the incumbents shown therein, the claim of the petitioners for inclusion in Ext. P8 shall be taken up immediately. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for information and compliance. K.K. DENESAN

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.