Disposed

Udayan.Y.S v. the Principal.Govt.Dental College &Ors

Kerala HC19 Jun 2008WP(C)/9221/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A sweepers sought re-engagement and disposal of his representation. The Karnataka High Court directed the Director to consider the representation and afford an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Director of Medical Education to consider the petitioner's representation, afford an opportunity of hearing, and consider his request for re-engagement.

Udayan.Y.S Vs the Principal.Govt.Dental College &Ors — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 9221 of 2008(W)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

UDAYAN.Y.S., PILLAVEEDU VILAKATHU, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, MEPPOOKADA, MALAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL

ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU

RESPONDENTS:

THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, OFFICE OF DME, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, KERALA SREE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶21

............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 9221 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 19^th June , 2008

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner has been working as Full Time Sweeper in the Government Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram . According to the petitioner, he had worked during various spells from 1999 onwards. In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Full Time Sweeper /Cleaner in the Government Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram on contract basis. It is admitted that he had worked for a long period, however not continuously. It is also stated that the method of appointment to the post of Full Time Sweeper in the Medical Education Department is by promotion from Part Time Sweeper. But none of the Part Time Sweepers are willing to be appointed as Full Time Sweepers.

¶24

The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “1. A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider the engagement of the petitioner as full time sweeper in Government Dental Colelge, Thiruvananthapuram in view of Exhibit P.10 sponsorship by Kerala Sree/Kudumbasree Unit.

¶25

2. Declare that the action of the 1^st respondent in not engaging the petitioner despite sponsorship in exhibit P10 by the Kerala Sree/Kudumbasree Unit as required by the 1^st respondent in letter No.E1/2862/2004/DCT dated 25.02.2008 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 9221 OF 2008

¶27

¶28

3. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.

¶29

4. Award the cost of these proceedings. “

¶30

As regards Ext. P10 sponsorship by Kudumbasree, it is stated in the statement that out of the list of five candidates, three of them including the petitioner were former employees and therefore a request was made to nominate three fresh candidates in lieu of three former employees including the petitioner . Subsequently, three fresh candidates were sponsored by Kudumbasree Mission and they were posted as Full Time Sweepers/Cleaners. The statement further discloses that the condition for termination of appointment was specifically noted in the order of appointment. The contention of the respondents is that it is not necessary to issue notice before terminating the petitioner from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P12 representation before the second respondent- Director of Medical Education and that it has not been disposed of.

¶31

The only relief which the petitioner presses for the time being is for issuance of a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P12 representation. In the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the request requires to be granted. The Director of Medical Education will consider Ext.P12 representation dated 07.03.2008 submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner . While considering Ext. P12, the second respondent shall take into account the fact that the petitioner was being engaged from 1999 onwards. The request for re-engaging him as Full Time Sweeper shall also be considered by the second respondent. The petitioner

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 9221 OF 2008

¶34

will be entitled to submit additional representation, if any, before the second respondent.

¶35

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶37

Udayan.Y.S v. the Principal.Govt.Dental College &Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayan.Y.S v. the Principal.Govt.Dental College &Ors

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

The Manager, M.A.M.O. College Vs State of Kerala

B.Vasanthakumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Muslim Educational & Cultural Form Vs State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary

Ajitha.K.T.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others

Ibrahim Kutty Vs the State of Kerala