Disposed

Priya.S. v. K.S.E.B

Kerala HC7 Nov 2012WP(C)/18046/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a request for admission to a B.Tech evening course. The petitioner sought directions to issue an NOC. The court noted that pursuant to a previous interim order, the NOC had already been issued and directed the applicants to make the interim order absolute, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 02.08.2011 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of.

Priya.S. Vs K.S.E.B — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/16TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 18046 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

PRIYA.S., AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR K.S. SUB-ENGINEER (CIVIL) OFFICE OF THE PROJECT MANAGER RANNI-PERUNAD SMALL HYDEL PROJECT, RANNI-PERUNAD PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 695001.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT), VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

¶13

4. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

¶14

TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R3 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.R. RAJESH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 18046 of 2012 (E)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER NO.PM/RP & PSHP/EB-1/ 2011-12/37 DATED 7/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE PROJECT MANAGER (HEAD OF OFFICE) TO THE DY.CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL CIRCLE, PALLOM.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT MEMO DATED 20/7/2012 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) REQUESTING TO ISSUE NOC IN VIEW OF THE URGENCY.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 18046 of 2012

¶28

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2012

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶31

prayers:

¶32

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to issue NOC to the petitioner on or before 4.5.2012 to be produced before the 4^th respondent for joining B.Tech (Civil) Evening course.

¶33

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision on Ext.P3 forthwith at any rate before 4.8.2012.

¶34

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 not to cancel the admission of the petitioner in B.Tech (Civil) evening course due to the delay in submission of NOC from KSEB.”

¶35

W.P.C. No. 18046 of 2012

¶36

-2-

¶37

When the matter came up for consideration before this

¶38

Court on 2.8.2011, the following interim order has been passed.

¶39

“Admit.

¶40

Standing counsel takes notice for respondents 1 & 2.

¶41

Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 3 & 4.

¶42

The Standing Counsel submits that although going by the board orders on the subject, the petitioner is entitled to a 'No Objection Certificate'. But presently she is stationed at Ranni and the college is at Thiruvananthapuram and therefore the petitioner has to get a transfer also to Thiruvananthapuram, if the petitioner is to undergo the studies for B.Tech course.

¶43

Having heard both sides, I direct the 2^nd respondent to issue a provisional No Objection Certificate to enable the petitioner to get admission subject to further orders in this writ petition. This shall be done within one week. If the petitioner produces the NOC within one week from today, the respondents 3 & 4 shall see that the petitioner is given admission if she is otherwise entitled to the same.”

¶44

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Board

¶45

W.P.C. No. 18046 of 2012 -3-

¶46

submits that, pursuant to the interim order NOC has already been given to the petitioner and that the interim order can be made absolute and the matter can be disposed of accordingly. In the above circumstance, the interim order dated 2.8.2011 is made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of, as no further orders are warranted.

¶47

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶48

Kp/-

Priya.S. v. K.S.E.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya.S. v. K.S.E.B

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

T.Jawahar and Another Vs Sri.N.Natarajan and Another

P.J.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rahimath.K.a. Vs Registrar

M.N. Sreenivasan Namboodiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Aneesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

B.B.Subha Vs the State of Kerala