Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAMES.P.V., S/O.VARGHESE P.T. versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAMES.P.V., S/O.VARGHESE P.T. v. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION) - WP(C) No. 5891 of 2007(B) [2007] RD-KL 4871 (7 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5891 of 2007(B)

1. JAMES.P.V., S/O.VARGHESE P.T.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE CORPORATE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :07/03/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.5891 OF 2007

Dated this the 7th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows: Petitioner was working as a Full Time Menial. One Smt.P.N.Bindu, H.S.A. ( Hindi) availed maternity leave from 26/06/03 to 07/2004. In the said vacancy One.Sri.G.Abhayan, LG.Hindi Teacher was promoted and appointed as H.S.A.(Hindi). In the resultant vacancy of LG Hindi Teacher, petitioner was promoted as LG Hindi Teacher. The said appointment was rejected by Exts.P4 and P5 on the basis that the appointment of Sri.G.Abhayan was not approved. Later as per Ext.P6, the appeal of the manager was allowed and approval of the appointment of the petitioner was directed. It is stated that Ext.P7 evidences that the promotion of Sri.G.Abhayan as H.S.A.(Hindi) during the above period was also approved. Approval of the petitioner was not being affected. WPC No.5891/07 2

2. A statement is filed by the second respondent. It is inter-alia stated that consequent to the orders issued directing the approval of Sri.G.Abhayan, the appointment of the petitioner in the consequent vacancy has also to be approved. The above approval is pending as the manager has not re-submitted the appointment order and the relevant records for appropriate orders. It is further stated that on re-submission of the documents, the second respondent will issue immediate orders approving the appointment of the petitioner.

3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the Board and learned Government Pleader also.

4. Learned counsel for the third respondent would in fact submits that papers relating to the approval of the appointment of the petitioner had already been submitted. If it is already been submitted, orders as stated in the statement will be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the second respondent. In case, it has not been WPC No.5891/07 3 submitted by the manager as of today, there will be a direction to the third respondent to re-submit the application as contemplated in the statement before the second respondent within two weeks from today and the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on receipt thereof within a period of two weeks. The amounts due to the petitioner will be paid without any further delay upon orders of approval being passed by the second respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv. WPC No.5891/07 4


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.