Allowed

P.v.Babu v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2012WP(C)/25891/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged denial of appointment approval. Court found notice to one respondent unnecessary and disposed of petition by directing the State to consider the pending revision petition within three months after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 revision petition and pass orders within three months after giving hearing to parties.

P.v.Babu Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 25891 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.V.BABU, AGED 42 YEARS SON OF LATE M.P SREEDHARAN NAMBIAR HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (MALAYALAM), MOOTHEDATH HIGH SCHOOL TALIPARAMBA

¶8

KANNUR DISTRICT (RESIDING AT SREEVASAM, THALORA KUTTERI, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 142)

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶10

SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶14

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 001.

¶15

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 001.

¶16

THE MANAGER MOOTHEDATH HIGH SCHOOL, TALIPARAMBA KANNUR DISTRICT. 670 141.

¶17

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WPC.25891/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10.9.1997 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.6.1998 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2(a).TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 5.6.2000 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2(b).TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 9.11.1999 AND THE APPROVAL THEREOF.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3. TURE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.275/99/G.EDN DATED 9.11.1999 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.237/2000/G.EDN DATED 15.7.2000 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO. 135/04/G.EDN DATED 15.5.2004 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF FIXATION ORDER 2001-2001 DATED 13.7.2001. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 29526/E3/2012/G.EDN DATED 15.6.2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.01/2012 OF THE MANAGER OF THE SCHOOL DATED 30.6.2012.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT DATED 03.07.2012.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 25891 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The denial of approval of appointment given to the petitioner in the post of H.S.A. (Malayalam) for the relevant period is the issue involved in this writ petition. It is seen that the petitioner had approached the Departmental authorities with his grievance, but the same did not turn fruitful, under which circumstance, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 revision revision petition under Rule 92 of Chapter XIV A KER, which is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is given to the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 in a reasonable time.

¶39

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶40

In the above circumstance, this Court finds it not necessary to issue notice to the 5^th respondent for the time being. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P9 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with

¶41

W.P.C. No.25891 of 2012 -2-

¶42

law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 5^th respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 1^st respondent for further steps.

¶43

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶44

Kp/-

P.v.Babu v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Babu v. the 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

The Manager Vs the Government of Kerala

The Manager, Vocational Higher Secondary School Vs the State of Kerala

M.Padmanabhan Namboothiri Vs Malabar Devaswom Board

The Manager, a.U.P.School Vs the State of Kerala

Ajith.Raj.D. Vs Mahatma Gamndhi University

Mohanan Nampoothiri.v. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board