Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHADRA P.M. versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SUBHADRA P.M. v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 1638 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 5377 (13 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1638 of 2007(T)

1. SUBHADRA P.M.,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :13/03/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No.1638 OF 2007

Dated this the 13th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P9. Case of the petitioner is that while primary school was upgraded as high school, petitioner having 13 years primary department service was promoted as H.S.A. Malayalam. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to full time H.S.A. Malayalam during 2003-04 as per Rule 6D of Chapter XXIII of KER. But authorities sanctioned only a part time H.S.A. Malayalam, it is stated. Petitioner relies on Ext.P4 judgment. By Ext.P9 Government rejected the claim of the petitioner. In Ext.P9, it is stated as follows:

" The case of examined with reference to the relevant rules and documents produced in support of the request of the petitioner. With regard to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.7455/05, the contention of the petitioner is not relevant since the WPC No.1638/07 2 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on petitions of individual cases cannot be taken as a criteria in sanctioning of posts as per General Rules. Further the argument of the petitioner that executive orders cannot override statutory rule is also not sustainable."

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader also.

3. I find it difficult to subscribe to the finding that executive orders can override statutory rule. I feel that the matter has to be re-considered taking note of Ext.P4 judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is quashed and the first respondent will consider and take a decision on the represent ion filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and taking note of Ext.P4 judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other affected party within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.M.JOSEPH

JUDGE

sv. WPC No.1638/07 3


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.