Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BIJU S., S/O. ABDU SAMAD versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BIJU S., S/O. ABDU SAMAD v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 16880 of 2007(H) [2007] RD-KL 9317 (4 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16880 of 2007(H)

1. BIJU S., S/O. ABDU SAMAD,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :04/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2007

Dated this the 4th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner claims that he was appointed as Full Time Menial under the management of respondent no.3 in a promotion vacancy with effect from September 20, 2002. However, it appears that the District Educational Officer, Wandoor refused to approve the said appointment on the ground that the appointment of the promotee in whose vacancy the petitioner had been appointed, had not been approved. Though the manager preferred an appeal against the order of the District Educational Officer, it was also dismissed as revealed from Ext.P1 order. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 revision petition against the order of the appellate authority before the Government. The limited prayer is to issue an appropriate direction to the revisional authority to take an expeditious decision in the matter. Learned Government Pleader submits that if Ext.P2 has been preferred, an appropriate decision thereon will be taken without any delay. W.P.(C)No.16880 of 2007

2. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent no.1 shall ensure that petitioner and the manager are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the 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.