Dismissed

J.Raveendran v. S.Sasidharan

Kerala HC18 Jun 2010WP(C)/1477/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, having retired from service and not being an aspirant for the post in question, challenged an appointment order and sought discontinuation of employees appointed without PSC concurrence. The court rejected the first prayer due to lack of locus standi and public interest. It found the second prayer unnecessary as the PSC had granted concurrence.

What the court decided

AI extract

J.Raveendran Vs S.Sasidharan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 1477 of 2010(H)

PETITIONER(S):

J.RAVEENDRAN, ORGANISING SECRETARY, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKERS CONGRESS (INTUC), CHITHRANJALI STUDIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

S.SASIDHARAN, ASSISTANT MECHANICAL ENGINEER (EQUIPMENT), KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHITHRANJALI STUDIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHITHRANJALI STUDIO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM FOR R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R4 MR.ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) No. 1477/2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 28/07/2009 IN WP (C) No. 20105/2007.

¶23

P2 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R4 TO R2.

¶24

P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL.

¶25

P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 12/12/2009.

¶26

P5 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02/11/2009 ISSUED BY R2.

¶27

P6 : COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF RECRUITMENT RULES IN THE KSFDC.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.1477 of 2010 (H)

¶33

Dated, this the 18^th day of June, 2010

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Prayers sought in the writ petition are to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 2^nd respondent to discontinue those persons, who are appointed in the service of the 2^nd respondent without concurrence and advice of the Public Service Commission and not to provide them any further benefit of career advancement.

¶36

Ext.P5 is the proceedings promoting the 1^st respondent to the post of Assistant Maintenance Engineer (Equipments). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, the petitioner was not an aspirant for that post and therefore, none of his individual rights are effected by Ext.P5. That apart, he has retired from service as early as on 31/05/2009. In that view of the matter and also taking into account that there cannot be any public interest litigation in service matters, first prayer insofar as Ext.P5 is concerned, cannot be accepted.

¶37

Insofar as the 2^nd prayer in the writ petition that the

¶38

WP(C) No.1477/2010

¶39

-2-

¶40

persons who are appointed in service without the concurrence of the PSC should be discontinued is concerned, in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, it is stated by the 2^nd respondent that the PSC vide its letter No. AIII(1) 2023/86/CW dated 08/04/2008, conveyed its concurrence for the proposal of the Corporation to regularize provisional employees in service. If that be so, the 2^nd prayer also does not arise for consideration.

¶41

In that view of the matter, I see no reason to issue any further direction in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly, closed.

¶42

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶43

J.Raveendran v. S.Sasidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

J.Raveendran v. S.Sasidharan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasna & Others Vs the General Manager, National Highway Au

S.Vijayakumaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Thomas P.C. Vs the Conservator of Forests

P.Hamza and Another Vs Jolly Varghese

Bindu Krishnankutty Vs State of Kerala

C.Muraleedharan Vs the State of Kerala