Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DEVAYANI ODATH W/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN versus THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DEVAYANI ODATH W/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN v. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS - OP No. 39592 of 2002(L) [2007] RD-KL 11981 (4 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 39592 of 2002(L)

1. DEVAYANI ODATH W/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner

1. DEVAYANI ODATH W/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN

1. DEVAYANI ODATH W/O. C.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN

Vs

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT

3. THE CHAIRMAN, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

4. THE PRINCIPAL, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

2. THE DIRECTOR, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT

3. THE CHAIRMAN, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

4. THE PRINCIPAL, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS

2. THE DIRECTOR, RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT

3. THE CHAIRMAN, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

4. THE PRINCIPAL, CALICUT ADARSH SANSKRIT

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :04/07/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.39592 OF 2002

Dated this the 4th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner was employed in an Education Institution, which, later, on account of steps taken by the Union of India, came to be under the control of Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan.

2. By judgment dated 26.7.1982 in O.P.No.4229/80, this Court directed the respondents therein to pass appropriate orders in relation to the petitioner on the basis of the observations in that judgment. This led to Writ Appeals being filed before the Division Bench by the Union of India and the other respondents. The Division Bench, by Ext.R4(3) judgment dated 7.4.1988, vacated the directions issued by the learned single Judge and directed that the petitioner's case be considered when a subsequent vacancy arises, if she is duly qualified at that time.

3. In the mean while, the petitioner faced certain proceedings on account of indiscipline resulting in her dismissal from service. OP.39592/02 Page numbers By Ext.P2 judgment dated 27.2.1992 in O.P.No.10078/88, this Court refused to entertain that writ petition against the disciplinary proceedings, on the ground that according to the petitioner, a Special Leave Petition was then pending before the Apex Court, at her instance, against the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench. She was accordingly given liberty to challenge the dismissal, in the event of the Apex Court setting aside the decision of the Division Bench, noted above.

4. It is the admitted fact that the SLP, challenging the judgment in the writ appeals, was dismissed. This means the petitioner's claim for entitlement to be treated as lecturer and to be employed in that status in the Institution, stood concluded against her by the judgment in the writ appeals, affirmed by the Apex Court and all that remained was her entitlement to be considered in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, as and when vacancy arises and if she is duly qualified at that point of time. Though Ext.P2 judgment in O.P.10078/88 made her right to challenge her dismissal from service to be dependant on OP.39592/02 Page numbers the verdict of the Apex Court in the SLP, I do not deem it necessary to decide in these proceedings as to whether the petitioner stood concluded finally by Ext.P2 judgment on that issue. This is because no further action has been taken by her to challenge the dismissal from service.

5. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to implement the report of a screening committee and to implement the recommendations of a one man committee. According to her, the screening committee found her competent to be employed as a teacher, though not as a lecturer and the one man committee, which, according to her, looked into the allegations against the Principal, had reported that the petitioner's dismissal was essentially a case of abuse of powers and because the Principal had an axe to grind against her.

6. The question whether the one man committee, which looked into the conduct of the Principal, was one appointed by the Government is itself a matter in dispute. OP.39592/02 Page numbers

7. But, while it would have been open to the Government and the management to reconsider the disciplinary proceedings if there was any such report, which would have prompted the management and the Government to take such a course of action, I do not deem it appropriate to issue a judicial order reopening such proceedings because the question of her entitlement to continue in service as a lecturer stands concluded against her by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, as affirmed by the Apex Court by the dismissal of the SLP.

8. In so far as the decision of the screening committee is concerned, the directions contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, by the dismissal of the SLP, still holds the field which is to the effect that the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioner in an independent selection, if she is duly qualified, when vacancy arises. But that direction was obviously issued by this Court when the situation of the dismissal of the petitioner was not on record, either because that was a later OP.39592/02 Page numbers event or because there was no material regarding that, on record.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, while it may be open to the respondents to decide for themselves as to whether the petitioner could be appointed as a teacher or not, I do not deem it appropriate to issue any direction in that regard in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb. OP.39592/02 Page numbers
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.39592 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

4th JULY, 2007.
=======================


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.