Partly allowed

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

Kerala HC19 Jun 2008WP(C)/9938/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued directions to the Registry and authorities of the Kerala Agricultural University to afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing any final decision on her employment representation, setting aside the order passed without hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to hear petitioner, reconsider grievances, and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Ajitha.K.T.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others — 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. 9938 of 2008(G)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

AJITHA K.T.K., C.K.HOUSE, POOKKOT DAIRY PROJECT, LAKKADY, WAYANADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR.

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN, ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, MANNUTHY, TRICHUR.

¶16

THE ASSOCIATED DEAN, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY ANIMAL SCIENCES, POOKKOT, LAKKADY, WAYANADU.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRHI RANJITH THAMPAN,SC, AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.

¶18

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

¶19

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶20

............................................................................

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 9938 OF 2008

¶22

............................................................................

¶23

Dated this the 19^th June, 2008

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

According to the petitioner, her husband was an employee of the Pookkot Girijans Collective Farming Co-operative Society , Wayanadu. It is stated in Ext. P1 Government Order that for the organisation of the Tribal Collective Farm at Pookkot, an extent of 1042.72 acres of vested forest land was transferred to the Tribal Collective Farm Society. It is further stated in the Government Order dated 13.08.1998 that it was decided that 100 acres of land which form part of land assigned to Pookkot Tribal Society may be transferred to the Agricultural University for starting a veterinary college with the following conditions:

¶26

i) The appointment of farm labourers in the farm attached to the college will be made from the members of the families settled in Pookkot Dairy Project.

¶27

ii) While making appointment to the posts in the college, the qualified persons of these families will be given priority.

¶28

The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 22.08.2007 and Ext. P4 representation dated 30.06.2007 to the Registrar of the Kerala Agricultural University and to the Chairman of the Establishment Committee of the Kerala Agricultural University respectively seeking for employment in the Pookkot Veterinary College. Since the representations were not considered by the authorities, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.31745 of 2007, which was disposed of as per Ext. P5 judgment dated 29.10.2007 directing the Registrar of the Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the representations were

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 9938 OF 2008

¶31

disposed of as per Ext.P6 order dated 08.01.2008 stating that the petitioner is not an evictee from the land transferred to the Kerala Agricultural University and therefore the representations submitted by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Ext.P6 order further states thus:

¶32

“If you have anything more to submit on the issue or want to hear personally, you are hereby requested to submit the same before the Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University on or before 31.01.2008.”

¶33

Ext.P6 order was passed without hearing the petitioner. Even in Ext.P6, it is made clear that the petitioner will be heard in person. If he is heard in person, he will be entitled to establish all the necessary facts to make a foundation for his claim. Those facts will be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed. It is made clear that Ext. P6 order would not stand in the way of the second respondent considering the case on the merits afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to some relief, Ext. P6 order cannot be taken as an impediment in passing appropriate orders. The petitioner has submitted Ext. P7 representation dated 18.01.2008 pointing out her grievances and making some other suggestions. The second respondent shall consider that representation as well , after hearing the petitioner and a final decision shall be taken by the second respondent within a period of three months from today.

¶34

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE.

¶35

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Ibrahim Kutty Vs the State of Kerala