Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.SBITHA, H.S.A., THRIKKODITHANAM versus THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.SBITHA, H.S.A., THRIKKODITHANAM v. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS - WP(C) No. 17191 of 2007(V) [2007] RD-KL 9631 (6 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17191 of 2007(V)

1. P.SBITHA, H.S.A., THRIKKODITHANAM
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

3. THANKAMONI M.P., H.S.A.,

4. SATHI KUNJAMMA.D.,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :06/06/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.17191 OF 2007

Dated this the 6th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner who is presently working as High School Assistant in Physical Science in a Government Higher Secondary School has a grievance that her name has been excluded from Ext.P3 list of promotees without any justifiable or valid reasons. In fact respondent no.3 who is her junior has found a place in Ext.P3 list, whereas petitioner has not. Anticipating promotion, she had given the list of stations of her choice. Her confidential report had been sent to the office of respondent no.1 on March 2, 2007 through special messenger. But still surprisingly her name has not been included in the list of promotees. She has raised several contentions in support of her plea that she ought to have been included in Ext.P3 list.

2. I do not propose to deal with the above contentions raised by the petitioner in view of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar. He submits that petitioner will be satisfied, if respondent no.1 is directed to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner highlighting all W.P.(C)No.17191 OF 2007 the relevant aspects of the issue. The limited prayer is to issue a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. Learned Government Pleader submits that an appropriate decision on Ext.P4 will be taken without any delay, if it has been preferred as contended by the petitioner.

3. 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.P4 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent no.1 shall ensure that petitioner, respondent no.3 and all others who are likely to be affected by the order that may be passed by him are afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken 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.