Disposed

State of Kerala v. Greeshma Prakash

Kerala HC4 Oct 2011RP/688/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition challenging an earlier order on appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors, the single-judge bench of the High Court of Kerala disposed of the petition, directing the State to invite applications by publication and conduct a fresh interview for all applicants.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was disposed of with a direction to invite applications by publication and conduct a fresh interview for all applicants.

State of Kerala Vs Greeshma Prakash — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 688 of 2011() --------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.9838/2011 DATED 7/06/2011)

¶4

REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):

¶5

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

¶6

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, KERALA SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

2. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, KERALA SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,KOLLAM.

¶9

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHADEVI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------

¶11

1. GREESHMA PRAKASAM,W/O.BINU, ADVOCATE, PUNALUR.

¶12

2. RESHMI S,W/O.GURUDAS,ADVOCATE,PUNALUR.

¶13

3. JISHA MURALI,W/O.SUJITH,ADVOCATE, PUNALUR.

¶14

4. MANJU,W/O.SATHEES,ADVOCATE,PUNALUR.

¶15

5. T.REJULA,ADVOCATE,PUNALUR,W/O.B.SHAMNAL, 'SAMANAD SHA' NIVAS,KUNNIKKODE,VILIAKUDI VILLAGE.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI. K.RAMACHANDRAN R5 BY ADV.SRI. MANOJ RAMASWAMY

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

R.P. No. 688 of 2011

¶22

¶23

W.P(C) No. 9838 of 2011

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4^th day of October, 2011.

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The State seeks review of my judgment dated 7.6.2011 in W.P(C) No. 9838/2011, in which I passed the following judgment:

¶27

“The petitioners are advocates who aspire for appointment to the temporary post of Assistant Public prosecutor Grade II in the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Punalur. They applied pursuant to the notification inviting applications published by the 3^rd respondent. Their grievance is that an interview has been conducted on 28.2.2011 without giving intimation to all the applicants regarding the date of interview. According to them, without notifying the date of interview to all the applicants, the interview has been conducted. The respondents take the stand that the date of the interview has been duly notified in the Bar Association Notice Board of the Punalur Bar Association. But, by Ext.P4, the Secretary of the Punalur Bar Association has certified that the Association has not received any intimation regarding the interview conducted on 28.2.2011.

¶28

I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent also.

¶29

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would contend that the 4^th respondent came to know about the date of interview from the notice board of the Bar Association. When the Secretary of the Bar Association himself has certified that the Bar Association had not received any intimation regarding the interview, I fail to understand how the 4^th respondent came to know about the date of interview from the notice board of the Bar Association. Whatever that be, I am of opinion that insofar as the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor is a very important post, even though the appointment is temporary, only the most competent person should be appointed. All the applicants are entitled to individual notices regarding the date of interview. When there is a dispute as to whether that notice has been duly published and I am satisfied that the date of interview has not been properly intimated to

¶30

R.P. No. 688 of 2011 in W.P(C) No. 9838 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶31

all the applicants, I am of opinion that it is only appropriate that the interview is conducted again. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶32

The 3^rd respondent shall issue individual notices to all the applicants who have applied by registered post and conduct a fresh interview after cancelling the interview held on 28.2.2011 for selection to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.”

¶33

Now, the contention raised is that no applications were actually invited or received, but, only a walk-in-interview was proposed. If that be so, the situation is more serious. I do not think that appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors, even if temporary, can be done by such haphazard procedure. Therefore, I am of opinion that if the review petitioners have not invited applications, they shall do at least now.

¶34

Therefore, the review petition is disposed of with a direction to the review petitioners to re-do the entire process by inviting applications by publication as contemplated by law and conducting an interview of all the applicants who submit applications pursuant to such notification.

¶35

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶36

Tds/

State of Kerala v. Greeshma Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Greeshma Prakash

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

Benoy P.Eapen Vs Districty Educational Officer,Kottayam

M/S.Hemambka Chitties & Loans Pvt.Ltd Vs Authority Under the Minimum Wages Act

E.R.Sabu Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

K.Sidharathan Vs State of Kerala

A.v.Subramanian Vs State of Kerala and Others

Subi Mathai Vs State of Kerala