Disposed

Rajeev U. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2008WP(C)/16897/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the exclusion of petitioners from the ranked list of Lecturer vacancies, the Court directed the College Education Commissioner to act on previously discussed vacancies and the Public Service Commission to advise candidates regarding a newly reported vacancy, while refusing further relief on un-sanctioned posts.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to act pursuant to the order dated 17/11/2008 and the third respondent to advise on vacancies reported as of 01/12/2008.

Rajeev U. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 16897 of 2008(J)

PETITIONER(S):

RAJEEV.U., UNATHIL HOUSE, ONAKKUNNU, KARIVELLUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

UNNIKRISHNAN.K.V., KRISHNANANDA, MELATHIYADAM, SREESTHA.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

SUDHAKARAN.K.G., S/O.P.V.KUNHIRAMAN, ELAYAD, THIMIRI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1-2&4

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WPC NO.16897/2008

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1 : COPY OF THE RANKED LIST FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN MALAYALAM IN KERALA COLLEGIATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

¶25

P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/10/2008 TOGETHER WITH STATEMENT OF WORK LOAD.

¶26

P3 : COPY OF THE CHART TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRINCIPALS AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE RESPECTIVE PRINCIPALS.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) No.16897 of 2008

¶32

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2008

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Ext.P1 is the ranked list published by the PSC for the post of Lecturer in Malayalam under the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners are included in the said list and this writ petition is filed complaining that there are 11 vacancies to be reported to the 3^rd respondent. According to the petitioners, if those vacancies are reported, there is a possibility of their getting advised against those vacancies.

¶35

Subsequently, the petitioners have filed I.A.No.15407/ 2008, producing Ext.P3 series of documents indicating the existence of vacancies. In addition to those vacancies, the petitioners also stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that one more promotion vacancy of Lecturer is in existence in the Government Maharajas College, Ernakulam since 21/11/2008.

¶36

In so far as the vacancy at Government College for Women, Thiruvananthapuram indicated in Ext.P3 reply dated 24/07/2008 is concerned, this Court has already passed order dated 17/11/2008, directing the 2^nd respondent to examine the claim of the petitioners, and it was further directed that if the vacancy is available to be reported, necessary steps will be taken with

¶37

WP(C) No.16897/2008

¶38

-2-

¶39

immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioners complain that nothing has been done in pursuance to that order. Therefore, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 2^nd respondent shall immediately take action in pursuance to the aforesaid order, and if the vacancy is available, he shall ensure that the same is reported to the PSC before 15/12/2008, when Ext.P1 list expires.

¶40

Be that as it may, in so far as the 9 vacancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that sanction has not been accorded in so far as the 7 vacancies are concerned. It is also submitted that one vacancy has already been reported on 01/12/2008 as per proceedings No.A2/13569/07/Coll.Edn. If that be so, I direct the 3^rd respondent to advise candidates in response to the vacancies so reported as expeditiously as possible. In so far as the 9^th vacancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submits that the said vacancy arose on account of the suspension of Shri. Jose Thomas, lecturer and that he has since been reinstated in service.

¶41

Thus from the submissions made, the controversy, if any, can only be in relation to the 7 vacancies pointed out by the

¶42

WP(C) No.16897/2008

¶43

-3-

¶44

learned counsel for the petitioners. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the posts are not sanctioned as at present. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it is open to the Government to pass orders for sanctioning the posts with retrospective effect and if that be so, the expiry of the list which is to happen on 15/12/2008 should be without prejudice to the petitioners.

¶45

The petitioners cannot have any claim unless and until the posts are sanctioned before the expiry of the list and it is entirely for the Government to deal with the same, and therefore, I leave it at that.

¶46

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to take further action as ordered above in pursuance to the order dated 17/11/2008. There will be a further direction to the 3^rd respondent to advise candidates in response to the vacancy reported on 01/12/2008. It will be open to the petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶47

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶48

Rajeev U. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev U. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Antony

M.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

P.Syamkumar Vs State of Kerala

The Corporation of Kollam Vs H.Mohammed Subair

Sree Maruthi Vidyalaya H.S.S,Neyyattink Vs State & 3

Antony Vs Kochi Corporation