Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SREENITH K.P. versus THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SREENITH K.P. v. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 15727 of 2007(V) [2007] RD-KL 8675 (25 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15727 of 2007(V)

1. SREENITH K.P.,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DISTRICT EDUCTIONAL OFFICER,

4. SRI.K.R.LAKSHMANAN,

5. THE HEADMASTER,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :25/05/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.15727 OF 2007

Dated this the 25th day of May, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Primary School Assistant in the school under the management of respondent no.4 in a temporary vacancy. Later, he was accommodated against a resignation vacancy with effect from June 5, 2003. It is the case of the petitioner that the said vacancy was a regular one and therefore the appointment was liable to be approved as ordered by respondent no.2 in Ext.P4 order. However, the controlling officer took a different view in the matter and he ordered that appointment of the petitioner was liable to be approved only with effect from 2nd June, 2004 to 25th July, 2007. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has challenged the above order under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV-A. A copy of the revision petition filed by the petitioner is on record as Ext.P6. Learned counsel submits that petitioner would be satisfied, if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 without any delay. W.P.(C)No.15727 OF 2007

2. In the above facts and circumstances, writ pettion is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that petitioner shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any orders are passed by respondent no.1 in the matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes


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.