Dismissed

T.P.Ranjith v. Prabhulla Balakrishnan

Kerala HC8 Oct 2013RP/781/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by a Circle Inspector of Police. The petitioner, also a third respondent in a writ petition, challenged the earlier order that stalled his posting in Kasaragod District. The court held there was no error on the face of the record and no vested right to a specific post, thus rejecting the review plea.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed holding no error apparent on the face of the record and no vested right to a specific posting.

T.P.Ranjith Vs Prabhulla Balakrishnan — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

RP.No. 781 of 2013 ()

¶6

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 21962/2013 DATED 06-09-2013)

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/3^rd RESPONDENT:

¶8

T.P. RANJITH,

¶9

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLD ROAD, ARIKKADY, KUMBALA, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 321.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶11

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

¶13

1. PRABHULLA BALAKRISHNAN, W/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN @ KUNDAR BALAN,

¶14

POSOLIGE HOUSE, KUNDAR POST, KASARAGOD-671 121.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,HOME AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

3. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,

¶17

POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.TEKCHAND R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.T.LILLY

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

R.P.NO.781/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEX 1	COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE GOOD SERVICE ENTRIES AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN
ANNEX 2	COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
ANNEX 3	COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL S.P KASARAGOD
ANNEX 4	COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE APPEARED IN A ''KARAVAL'' DAILY NEWS PAPER IN THE YEAR 1999 REGARDING THE STRINGENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEX 5	COPY OF THE ARTICLE APPEARED IN ''MADHYAMAM'' DAILY ON 18/06/2011
ANNEX 6	COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED IN WP(C)NO.7469/2013
ANNEX 7	COPY OF THE NEWS ARTICLE APPEARED IN ''THEJAS'' DAILY ON 19.06
ANNEX 8	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/05/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE KERALA POLICE CHIEF

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

¶26

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OBTAINED UNDER THE RTI ACT

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

¶32

R.P.No.781 OF 2013 IN

¶33

W.P.(c) No.21962 OF 2013

¶34

¶35

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2013

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This review petition has been filed by the third respondent in the

¶38

writ petition stating that he is aggrieved of the verdict passed by this Court, whereby his continuance as an officer of the Police Department

¶39

in Kasargod District has been stalled, because of the pendency of the CBI investigation in respect of Crime No.78/2008 of Adhur Police Station.

¶40

The issue is in respect of the alleged intervention made by

¶41

the third respondent in the writ petition ( Review Petitioner herein) with regard to the above Crime involving offence under Section 302, 341 r/w 34 of IPC in connection with the murder of the petitioner's husband, which according to the writ petitioner was being interfered by the third respondent.

¶42

When the writ petition came up for consideration before

¶43

this Court, it was stated that the third respondent was going to be

¶44

R.P.No.781/2013 2

¶45

promoted as 'DySP' and there was every chance to make him continue in Kasargod itself, which was stated as detrimental to the rights and interests of the victim and the petitioner in all respects and hence intervention of this Court was sought for.

¶46

The submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 was that a decision had already been taken to transfer out and post the review petitioner as Circle Inspector of Police at Ambalappuzha in Alappuzha District and it had already been decided not to give him any posting in Kasargod for the time being. This Court only recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader and the matter was disposed of accordingly, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the third respondent in the writ petition was not given any posting in Kasargod District, as submitted on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 till the investigation was completed by the CBI and charge sheet was submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

¶47

The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that

¶48

the above observation made by this Court has adversely affected the rights and interests of the review petitioner. This Court dis-agrees,

¶49

R.P.No.781/2013

¶50

¶51

mainly for the reason that the promotion of the review petitioner, if at all any, sought to be stalled by the writ petitioner was not entertained

¶52

by this Court. This Court only recorded the submission made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, as to the decision already taken to transfer the review petitioner out of Kasargod District and with regard to the posting given at Ambalappuzha in Alappuzha District, which position was ordered to be maintained till the CBI investigation was over.

¶53

With regard to the right of the review petitioner to have a posting in Kasargod, nobody in the Government service has any vested right to occupy a particular post in a particular District, more so when the review petitioner is holding a transferable job and is bound to serve anywhere in the State of Kerala; more so, being a member of a disciplined force. That apart, there is no case for the review petitioner that the review petitioner has challenged the order passed by the concerned higher authority transferring him out of Kasargod District and giving a posting at Ambalappuzha in Alappuzha District. This being the position, this Court holds that no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the review petitioner in this regard.

¶54

R.P.No.781/2013

¶55

¶56

With regard to the probable promotion to be given to the

¶57

review petitioner as 'DySP', obviously this Court has not entertained the relief sought for by the writ petitioner to deny the promotion ,if it

¶58

was due to be given to the third respondent/review petitioner. The verdict already passed by this Court does not place any hurdle with regard to the promotion of the review petitioner, if the same is due and it will not be a bar to the concerned authorities to consider the claim of the review petitioner, if he is due for promotion.

¶59

With the above observation, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record, so as to invoke the power of review. It has been alerted by the Apex Court time and again that the scope of review cannot be misconstrued as a substitute for appeal. This Court finds support from the decision reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 ( Meera

¶60

. Banja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary )

¶61

Review petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶62

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶63

sv.

¶64

R.P.No.781/2013 5

T.P.Ranjith v. Prabhulla Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Ranjith v. Prabhulla Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Chief Environmental Engineer

Dineshan Vs State of Kerala

M.Hemalatha Vs the Post Master General

Kader Mydeen Wafer Vs Union of India

Thambi Vs Kerala State Film Development Corporation

A.R. Babu Vs the District Collector