Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS versus S. JAYAKUMAR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS v. S. JAYAKUMAR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK - WP(C) No. 3393 of 2004(S) [2007] RD-KL 7036 (3 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3393 of 2004(S)

1. N. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. S. JAYAKUMAR, LOWER DIVISION CLERK,
... Respondent

2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS

3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,

4. THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

5. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF THE

For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.SHAFIK

For Respondent :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :03/04/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.P.(C).NO. 3393 OF 2004

Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2007.



JUDGMENT

Koshy, J.

Petitioner and first respondent in the Writ Petition were recruited under the Sports Quota in relaxation to the normal recruitment rule as Lower Division Clerk and were allotted to the office of the 5th respondent herein. They joined the department on 31.8.1984. Both of them were not having the prescribed typing test before their recruitment as Lower Division Clerks. But the petitioner passed the typing test on 25.2.1986 where as the first respondent herein passed the typing test only on 18.5.1987. It is the case of the petitioner that he was considered senior. He was promoted in the vacancy in the year 2003. Then first respondent challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The case before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that respondent was considered as senior. In view of Annexure A5, by which those who pass the test after two years will lose seniority. Respondent relied on Annexure A11, wherein Annexure A5 was withdrawn and decided that seniority will be taken up according to advise as well as confirmation. However, it is the case of petitioner that in paragraph 3 in A11 itself, it is stated that the W.P.(C).NO. 3393 OF 2007 2 seniority as on the date of Annexure A11 will not be affected. Department has filed a seniority list before this court. On going through the order we are of the view that these facts were not considered by the Tribunal. Effect of A5, A11, who was considered as senior, when A11 was passed etc. were not considered. Therefore, Ext.P4 is set aside and case is remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

bkn


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.