Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.M.SHAMLATHU BEEGUM versus DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.M.SHAMLATHU BEEGUM v. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) - WP(C) No. 89 of 2007(I) [2007] RD-KL 803 (10 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 89 of 2007(I)

1. T.M.SHAMLATHU BEEGUM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,

3. EMPLOYMENT OFFICER,

4. RAMLA BEEVI, MADATHIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :10/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO. 89 of 2007

Dated this the 10th day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that overlooking her superior claim for appointment to the post of Part Time Sweeper in the Health Department, the first respondent has selected and appointed the 4th respondent. Having regard to the facts stated by the petitioner in support of her contentions, it appears that the Director of Health Services shall look into the complaints and after calling for the relevant records, take appropriate decision. The petitioner has approached the Director of Health Services by filing Ext.P8 representation, which according to the petitioner contains facts germane for consideration.

2.Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the Head of the Health Services Department to take appropriate decision. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent in these proceedings.

3. The writ petition is disposed of directing the Director of Health Services who has been impleaded as additional 5th respondent to issue W.P.(C)No.89/2007 2 notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, consider all relevant facts with reference to the records and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 5th respondent along with a copy of the writ petition. Needless to state that if the parties respond to the notice, they shall be heard and their contentions shall be adverted to.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

css/ W.P.(C)No.89/2007 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.