A writ petition by three petitioners seeking promotion to LDC/Village Assistant post. The Court held fact adjudication unnecessary and directed respondents to consider pending representations within two months.
Respondents directed to consider representations Ext.P4, P4(A), P5, and P6 and pass appropriate orders within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933
WP(C).No. 28186 of 2011(W)
PETITIONERS:
BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. LIJU V. STEPHERN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 28186 of 2011(W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH STANDARD EQUIVALANCY “A” LEVEL EXAMINTION CERTIFICATE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH STANDARD EQUIVALANCY “A” LEVEL EXAMINTION CERTIFICATE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE 10TH STANDARD EQUIVALANCY “A” LEVEL EXAMINTION CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 23/2/2010 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4(A). TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER REPRESENTATION OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FILED IN AUGUST 2011. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 5/7/2011. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESSPONDENT ON 5/82011.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
/true copy/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.(C) No. 28186 OF 2011
Dated this the 10th November , 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have approached this Court with the
following prayers:
“a) writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to promote the petitioners to the next higher category as expeditiously as possible.
b) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to be promoted to the post of LDC/Village Assistant considering their qualification.
c) writ of mandamus to the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4, P4(A)and P5 as expeditiously as possible.
d) writ of mandamus to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible
e) to grant such other relieves prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.”
2
W.P.(C) No. 28186 OF 2011
respondents, on instruction, submits that the grievance of the petitioners, as projected in the writ petition, has already been exposed in Exts.P4, P4(A), P5 and P6 representations preferred before the different authorities, who are included in the party array and that the matter can be disposed of by directing the concerned respondents to consider and finalise the same.
In the said circumstance, this Court does not find it necessary to have a fact adjudication in this case. Accordingly, the respondents concerned are directed to consider Exts.P4, P4 (A), P5 and P6 representations and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondents for further steps.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
lk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court needs to adjudicate facts regarding the petitioners' promotion claims or should merely direct authorities to consider pending representations.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to direction for consideration of their representations for promotion to LDC/Village Assistant post within two months.
Janardhanan.P.C.
K.P.Dileep Kumar
Purushothaman M.K.
State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department
The District Collector, Kozhikode
The Tahsildar, Kozhikode
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
