Dismissed

V.T.Reghunath v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC12 Oct 2010WA/1764/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ appeal at the admission stage. The court held that granting an interim stay would enable the appellant to discharge judicial and administrative functions with far-reaching consequences, thus balance of convenience was not in favour of the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed at the admission stage; interim order rejected.

V.T.Reghunath Vs State of Kerala 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 & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

WA.No. 1764 of 2010 --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. No.13953/2010 IN WPC.30427/2010 Dated 08/10/10 ....................

¶6

APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN I.A/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶7

¶8

V.T.REGHUNATH, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT CASES/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE) THODUPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN IA/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

THE REGISTRAR GENERAL (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY),

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

R1 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA.

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

W.A.No. 1764 OF 2010

¶21

- - - - Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2010

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 30427 of 2010 aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. No.13953 of 2010 in the said writ petition.

¶25

The appellant is working as a District Judge and

¶26

is a member of the Kerala Higher Judicial Services. The 2^nd respondent, i.e. this Court, in exercise of its obligation arising under the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1961 and also under the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India(W.P.(C) No.1022/1989) opined that on a review of the performance and all other relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration assessed the continued utility of the appellant and issued Ext.P2 notice stating that the continuance of the appellant herein is not called for.

¶27

Challenging the said decision of the 2^nd

¶28

WA No. 1764 of 2010

¶29

-:2:-

¶30

respondent, i.e. Ext.P2, the appellant herein preferred the abovementioned writ petition and also sought an interim order staying the operation of Ext.P2 and permit the appellant to continue in service till the age of 60 years. By the order under appeal the interim order was rejected. Hence this appeal.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.S.Ramesh Babu. The learned counsel attempted to make a submission on the existence of the prima facie case in favour of the appellant. We do not propose to examine the correctness of the submission, as any observation in this regard is likely to have a bearing on the merits of the writ petition which is still pending. Coming to the second submission of the appellant that balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant and therefore the interim order as the one sought by the appellant ought to have been granted, we do not see any reason to accept the submission.

¶32

The appellant if succeeds in the writ petition eventually would be entitled to all the benefits of the office despite the fact that he does not discharge his functions as a

¶33

WA No. 1764 of 2010

¶34

-:3:-

¶35

Judicial Officer during the pendency of the writ petition. On the other hand, if the appellant fails in his challenge, the interim order, as the one sought by him if granted, would enable the appellant to discharge both the Judicial and Administrative functions with far reaching consequences which may result in complications. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant. Hence the learned Single Judge has rightly declined the interim order.

¶36

We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed at the

¶37

admission stage.

¶38

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

¶39

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.

¶40

ttb

¶41

WA No. 1764 of 2010

¶42

-:4:-

V.T.Reghunath v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Reghunath v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govt of India Vs P.C.Paul

Pratiksh a.Asheer Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh Soman Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Mosque Lane Residents Association Vs M/Vijayanand

Ritha Thomas @ Annie Rithakarukaparambil Vs N.v.Sobhana

Aswathy.P Vs State of Kerala