Dismissed

Shimna.v.S and Others v. Ajitha Kumary.K.S and Others

Kerala HC13 Oct 2010WA/1605/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of an interim stay application in a service dispute concerning appointment of Women Protection Officers, holding the Single Judge's reasons correct and sustainable pending final merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellants to pursue the matter before the learned Single Judge pending final decision on merits.

Shimna.v.S and Others Vs Ajitha Kumary.K.S and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932

¶6

WA.No. 1605 of 2010

¶7

----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 11217/2010 IN WPC.23729/2010 Dated 13/08/2010

¶8

APPELLANTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 IN WRIT PETITION

¶9

¶10

SHIMNA.V.S,SANTHA NIVAS,PUNNAMOOD, KALLIYOOR.

¶11

LINCY.A.K, CHAITHRAM HOUSE, MANGAD PO, UNNIKULAMAYA,KOZHIKODE.

¶12

THAHIRA BEEVI,T.C.52/85(2),KATTAKATH, KARAKKAMANDAPAM,NEMOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 585.

¶13

TESSY ABRAHAM,W/O.JESTINE K.J.MASTER, SAINIK SCHOOL PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 585.

¶14

SULAJA.P,1/217, JNEO APARTMENT, BYPASS ROAD,WESTHILL,CHUNGAM,KOZHIKODE.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE

¶16

SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN

¶17

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2

¶18

¶19

AJITHA KUMARI.K.S,BLUE NILE,

¶20

SASTHAMCOTTA PO,KOLLAM DISTRICT,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 'KARTHIKA',AKSHYA NAGAR, 89,KADAPPAKKADA PO, KOLLAM, PIN 691 008.

¶21

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 001.

¶22

WA 1605 OF 2010

¶23

¶24

THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 001.

¶25

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS

¶26

R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

W.A. No.1605 of 2010

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2010

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶35

This writ appeal is against the order dated 13^th August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.11217 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.23729 of 2010 (produced as Annexure IV) whereby the prayer of the petitioners therein to vacate the interim stay granted earlier was rejected and the writ petition was ordered to be posted for hearing.

¶36

The sequence of events as narrated in the writ appeal shows that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for filling up the posts of Women Protection Officers in the Social Welfare Department by way of transfer, eligible candidates applied for selection. However, since the notification mentioned that the selection was by way of PSC/transfer, one of the candidates filed W.P.(C) No.23527 of 2010 stating that she has not been selected and

¶37

W.A. No.1605 of 2010

¶38

that the selection was finalized contrary to the notification issued and it was never done through the Public Service Commission even though appointment by transfer was stipulated to be made by the Public Service Commission. After taking note of the rival contentions and the Special Rules, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per the verdict dated 5.8.2010 holding that by virtue of the stipulation contained in the notification selection could be made by way of transfer, i.e. even outside the Public Service Commission as the transfer was never brought within

¶39

the purview of the Special Rules as contended on the part of the concerned respondents.

¶40

Meanwhile, another writ petition was filed before this Court as W.P.(C) No.23729 of 2010 wherein the appellants herein got themselves impleaded as additional respondents 3 to 7 and filed an application to vacate the interim order of stay already passed in the said case. The learned Single Judge after taking note of the contentions raised on both the sides observed that, prima facie, there was subsequent change in the qualifications after the

¶41

W.A. No.1605 of 2010

¶42

¶43

issuance of Ext.P1 notification dated 3.3.2009 and therefore the

¶44

matter requires to be considered and accordingly the application filed for vacating the stay was rejected and the writ petition itself was posted for final hearing which in turn is under challenge in this writ appeal.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the observation made by the learned Single Judge is not correct in so far as the qualification was stipulated not on 14.7.2010 as contended by the opposite side but by the selection committee which convened a meeting on 8.7.2009. Even if the said contention is accepted to be correct, it is very much after Ext.P1 notification inviting applications and this being the position, the matter requires to be considered whether the contention raised by the parties with regard to the subsequent addition of the qualification after notifying the posts and inviting applications is tenable to be considered and acted upon.

¶46

In the said circumstances, we find that the reasons

¶47

given by the learned Single Judge for rejecting the prayer mooted in

¶48

W.A. No.1605 of 2010

¶49

¶50

the interlocutory application is quite correct and sustainable till the matter is finally decided on the basis of the merits of the case. Accordingly interference is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellants may pursue the matter before the learned Single Judge.

¶51

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶52

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶53

Judge

¶54

vns

Shimna.v.S and Others v. Ajitha Kumary.K.S and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shimna.v.S and Others v. Ajitha Kumary.K.S and 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

Mosque Lane Residents Association Vs M/Vijayanand

Ritha Thomas @ Annie Rithakarukaparambil Vs N.v.Sobhana

Aswathy.P Vs State of Kerala

Dr. R.Pushpakumari Vs Dr.Manomohanan & Another

K.R.Mohanan Vs Narayanankutty @ Haridas

Ibrahim P. Vs Basheer M.A.