Petitioner challenged the selection of a dentist as an LPG distributor, arguing dual employment was prohibited. The court held no such prohibition existed and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as it fails.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931
WP(C).No. 25968 of 2009(M) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
SUREKHA.S,SUDARSHANA,POST CHOMBALA, TAL-VADAKARA,KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
W.P.(C).25968/2009
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
W.P.(C).25968/09
2
“Regarding the contention of the petitioner that the 5th respondent is a Dentist practicing at Nathapuram, it is submitted that applicants are required to undertake that in the event of him/her being awarded LPG distributorship, he/she would be liable to resign from the employment and being a full time distributor, it is therefore submitted that there is no bar or prohibition in an employed candidate one who is a professional from participating in the selection for award of distributorship.”
W.P.(C).25968/09
3
The petitioner cannot therefore successfully challenge the selection of the fifth respondent.
I therefore, find no grounds to entertain this writ
petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge
mrcs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a practicing dentist can be selected as an LPG distributor when the petitioner claims such dual employment is prohibited.
Whether the selection process violated the petitioner's right to equality by favoring the fifth respondent.
Whether a writ petition challenging the appointment of an LPG distributor based on professional qualifications can be entertained.
SUREKHA.S
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
DR.DEEPTHI.P
P.N.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
