Remanded

C.S.Vasanthakumari and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2010WP(C)/5827/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired after service due to delays in promotional examinations, sought consideration for promotion. The High Court directed the Departmental Promotion Committee to evaluate their cases against vacancies existing on the date of incurred delays, disregarding retirement date consequences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' cases to be considered by DPC against vacancies existing on date of vacancy occurrence; directions to conclude within 8 weeks.

C.S.Vasanthakumari and Others Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5827 of 2010(C) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

1. C.S.VASANTHAKUMARI , DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT GRADE-II, GOVERNMENT JUVENILE HOME, THRISSUR.

¶9

2. THARA BAI C, ASSISTANT CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF CHILD DEVELOPMEN T PROJECT OFFICER ,ICDS PROJECT, KOOVAPPADY.

¶10

3. SHAHIDA BEEVI M,ASSISTANT CHILD DEVELOPME NT PROJECT OFFICER HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ,ICDS PROJECT, CHAMPAKKULAM.

¶11

4. SHERLY FIGARADO, ASSISTANT CHILD DEVELOPMET PROJECT OFFICER HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,ICDS PROJECT, MATTANCHERRY.

¶12

5. T.V.JAYA, ASSISTANT CHILD DEVELOPMET PROJECT OFFICER HOLDING FULL ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF CHILD DEVELPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,ICDS PROJECT VELIYANAD.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.RAMESH. C.R. SRI.K.V.VIMAL

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

WPC NO.5827/2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

2. DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 033.

¶20

3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE(LOWER) SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS0 CONVENER, THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE , VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695 033.

¶21

SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WPC NO.5827/10

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E7/4190/08 DT 7.6.08 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶27

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E9/45941/08 DT 27.2.2009 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶28

EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF GRADE II CATEGORIES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 25/1/2008 TO 25/10/2008 OF THE SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT.

¶29

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.5328/RULESI/99/P&ARD DT 3.6.99.

¶30

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶31

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶32

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶33

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.162/2010/SWD DT 19.3.2010.

¶34

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E9/6785/2010 DT 1.3.2010 OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE.

¶35

EXT.P8(a): TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF GRADE II CATEGORIES FOR THE PERIOD FROM 26/10/08 TO 31/12/2009.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5827 OF 2010 (C)

¶40

=====================

¶41

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2010

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

First petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent and petitioners 2 to 5 are Assistant Child Development Project Officers. They aspired for promotion to the post of Child Development Project Officers. According to the petitioners, though there were sufficient vacancies in existence, for the only reason that the select list was not prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee in time, they were not considered for promotion. It was with this grievance and complaining that if inordinate delay is caused, they will be retiring from service on 31/3/2010, the writ petition was filed.

¶44

Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 3/3/2010, the case of the petitioners for provisional promotion was considered. However, the same was rejected by Ext.P7 order. Thereafter, further directions were issued by order dated 26/3/2010 directing that provisional promotion be given to petitioners 1 to 4 before 31/3/2010. On the issuance of such order, the respondents have filed IA No.4850/10 seeking to vacate

¶45

WPC No.5827/10

¶46

:2 :

¶47

the interim order and the justification thereof is stated in para 5 of the affidavit. It is stated that if the order were to be complied with, 62 persons will have to be promoted and that it was not possible for them to make such large scale promotions and that too within the short time that was available before 31.3.2010.

¶48

As it now stands, petitioners have retired from service on 31/3/2010 and the fact that certain vacancies were available in the category of Child Development Project Officers is not a matter of dispute. Therefore, as at present, the only relief the petitioners can seek is that their claims should be considered, against the vacancies, which were available till 31/3/2010 applying the rules then in force and with reference to the date of occurrence of vacancies. To this contention, respondents also can have no quarrel.

¶49

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to convene DPC and consider the case of the petitioners applying the rules, which were in force as on the date of occurrence of vacancies. It is directed that this process should be completed and orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this

¶50

WPC No.5827/10

¶51

:3 :

¶52

judgment. Needless to say that having regard to the pendency of the writ petition and the orders passed by this Court, the fact that the petitioners have retired from service on 31/3/2010 shall be of

¶53

no consequence while considering their case as above.

¶54

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶55

C.S.Vasanthakumari and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S.Vasanthakumari and Others v. State of Kerala

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

R.Minimol Vs State of Kerala & Others

M.B.Vinod Kumar Vs Shri Patil Ajit Bhawatrao

Thankabai Vs State of Kerala and Others

Vinod C.A. Vs the State of Kerala

S.Sarath Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Dr.T.L.James Vs Principal Secretary to Govt.