Disposed

Institute of Human Resources Development v. Biju C.

Kerala HC15 Jul 2013WA/1400/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court closed the Writ Appeal against an interim order directing an Institute to fill vacancies. The Court held that since the underlying writ petition was pending before the Single Judge and justice required its disposal, the appellate matter was closed, reserving contention-raising for the lower court.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is closed. No costs.

Institute of Human Resources Development Vs Biju C. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2013/24TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶7

W.A.No.1400 of 2012

¶8

AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).No.17134/2011-N DATED 27.06.2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶9

APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT:-

¶10

THE INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (I.H.R.D), PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER:-

¶13

SRI.BIJU C., AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF LATE C.CHATHU, CHEMBANTAVIDA HOUSE P.O., KADIRUR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 642.

¶14

ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED:

¶15

ADDL.R.2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY VIGILANCE DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

(ADDITIONAL 2^nd RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DATED 26.07.2012).

¶17

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

¶18

SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR.

¶19

R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL.

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran, J. ------------------------W.A.No.1400 of 2012

¶22

Dated this, the 15^th day of July, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

K.Vinod Chandran,J.

¶25

The appeal is from an interim order directing the appellant to fill up the non-joining duty vacancies provisionally, subject to further orders in the writ petition.

¶26

We notice that there was a stay of the implementation of the interim order, granted at the time of admission of this appeal.

¶27

The writ petition was filed seeking inter alia for direction to the appellant/ respondent to fill up the regular vacancies of last grade servants from Exhibit P2 rank list. The 1^st respondent/writ petitioner also sought for a direction to appoint him against the non-joining duty vacancy of Other Backward Community (OBC) candidate.

¶28

The appellant's contention is that the Government has initiated enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau on matters relating to the conduct of written test, interview, selection

¶29

W.A.No.1400 of 2012 - 2 -

¶30

and appointment of last grade servants vide notification dated 18.09.2010, which is the subject matter of the above case. It was also contended that a Committee for revision of staff pattern and Special Rules in the appellant-Institute has been constituted by the State Government and the actual number of vacancies of last grade servants could be assessed only after finalization of the report. Though as per the directions of the Division Bench and subsequent judgments 85 candidates were provided with daily wage service as last grade servants, from the rank list, no further appointments could be made even on daily wage basis, since several units under the appellant were closed and there is no requirement for such appointment.

¶31

We notice that the writ petition is pending before the learned Single Judge and interest of justice would be served if the writ petition itself is disposed of. Various contentions raised before us for not complying with the interim direction also have to be necessarily placed before the learned Single

¶32

W.A.No.1400 of 2012 - 3 -

¶33

Judge who is hearing the writ petition, as per roster. In such circumstances, we close the Writ Appeal, reserving liberties to the parties to raise all contentions before the learned Single Judge and also, if so advised, pray for an early hearing.

¶34

The Writ Appeal is closed. No costs.

¶35

Sd/Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice

¶36

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶37

Vku/-

¶38

( true copy )

Institute of Human Resources Development v. Biju C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Institute of Human Resources Development v. Biju C.

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

Annamma Vs Baby

Mini Mathews Vs the High Court of Kerala and Others

E. Krishnan Namboodiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Suresh M Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Other

Abdul Samad Vs the Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad

Dr.Abraham Kuruvilla Vs Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences