GEETHAMONY.B. versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

GEETHAMONY.B. v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 16905 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 9456 (5 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16905 of 2007(K)

1. GEETHAMONY.B.,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (KOLLAM),

3. THE MANAGER, ADHICHANELLOOR PANCHAYAT

4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :05/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.16905 OF 2007

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2007

JUDGMENT

Petitioner was placed at Sl.No.5 in the supplementary list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for selection to the post of H.S.A.(Malayalam). List expired in the year 2001. It is the admitted position that petitioner was advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment in a school managed by a local statutory body, namely Adhichanelloor Panchayat in Kollam district on an option exercised by her. She has been working in the said school ever since, for the last about six years. Apparently petitioner now wants to come out of the aided school service and join the Government service. According to the petitioner, vacancies are available in `various Government schools' in Kollam district and she can be accommodated in one of those vacancies.

2. There may be vacancies, but the fact that hundreds of eligible selected candidates and other eligible teachers are  W.P.(C)No.16905 OF 2007 waiting for their turn for appointment and promotion as the case may be, in these vacancies, cannot be disputed. The mere fact that petitioner wants to taken out of the aided school service to Government school service. She had exercised her option way back in the year 2001. She cannot have the cake and eat it too. At this belated stage, especially long after expiry of the validity of the list, petitioner cannot be allowed to annul the option exercised by her and to upset the settled positions of seniority of teachers. Petitioner has not been able to point out any statutory provision which would come to her rescue. Though the request made by her appears to be innocuous, I do not deem it just or proper to issue a direction to respondent no.1 to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by her. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes 

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

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.