Disposed

Jahangir Kasim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2013WP(C)/14715/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two identical writ petitions filed by Deputy Managers seeking transfer to new districts. The petitioners alleged non-implementation of transfer provisions in Staff Regulations due to unsettled seniority. The Court relied on a previous judgment and directed the respondents to complete seniority settlement within stipulated time before considering transfer applications.

What did the court decide?

Directions to settle seniority of Deputy Managers expeditiously and consider transfer applications within one month of settlement.

Jahangir Kasim Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/25TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 14715 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAHANGIR KASIM

¶8

DISTRICT MANAGER (IN CHARGE) VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL KERALAM TRAINING CENTRE, KAMBALAKAD P.O, WAYANAD

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER VEGETABLE AND FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL

¶13

KERALAM (VFPCK), “MYTHRI BHAVAN”

¶14

NEAR DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 037

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.LOWSY

¶16

R2 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN,SC,VEGETABLE & FRUIT PROMOTION COUNCIL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 14716/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 14715 of 2013 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-01-2007 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STAFF REGULATION PERTAINING TO THE STAFF'S IN VFPCK

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER DATED 10-052010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER APPLICATION DATED 9-5-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIOND ATED 15-2-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-2-2012

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶32

W.P.(C)Nos.14715 & 14716 of 2013

¶33

Dated 17^th October, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioners in both these writ petitions are presently working as Deputy Managers with additional charge of District Manager under the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council, Keralam. The petitioner in the former writ petition is working as such in Wayanad District and the petitioner in the latter writ petition is working in Malappuram District. They sought for transfer to Pathanamthitta and Kollam Districts respectively. The contention of the petitioners is that despite the incorporation of Chapter XX dealing with the subject of transfer in the Staff Regulations which is produced as Ext.P2 in these writ petitions no steps were taken to implement the same and consequently the applications submitted by the petitioners for transfer are remaining unconsidered. Despite the repeated requests no decision was taken on the representations of the petitioners for transfer solely on account of the non-implementation of Ext.P2 more particularly, Part A of Chapter XX of Ext.P2, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions seeking for a declaration that they are entitled to be transferred in tune with the provisions under Chapter XX of Ext.P2 and for such other consequential reliefs.

¶36

¶37

WP(C).Nos.14715 & 14716/2013

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶39

The learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that earlier, on being aggrieved by the nonfinalisation of the selection process initiated in regard to the post of Assistant Manager under the second respondent one Jyothish Kumar filed W.P.(C)No.26796 of 2012 before this Court. Though the said writ petition was mainly pertaining to the said selection process while considering the said question the issue as to why the process of promotion got prolonged was considered. Ultimately the said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 28.5.2013. A photocopy of the said judgment was made available to me. In paragraph 6 thereunder it is stated thus:-

¶40

“6. I have already referred to the circumstance under which process of promotion was prolonged. As seen from Ext.P10, the Chief Executive Officer has invited comments and grievances in the matter to reach him on or before 10.05.2013. Certainly, since the regulation came only in the year, 2011 and the unions of the employees have raised objection on various

¶41

¶42

WP(C).Nos.14715 & 14716/2013

¶43

matters, it may be necessary that those objections are considered before the process of promotion is initiated. Hence, I am inclined to grant time to the respondents 1 and 2 for the purpose.”

¶44

As per the same, respondents 1 and 2 viz., the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council and the Chief Executive Officer of the Council were directed to complete the process of selection pursuant to Ext.P10, referred as such in that writ petition, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said judgment. The learned standing counsel also submitted that subsequently the said time limit was extended by three months. It is further submitted that in the light of the said judgment the seniority of persons belonging to different categories under the second respondent have to be settled. Going by Part A of Chapter XX of Ext.P2 even for consideration of the applications for transfer settling the seniority in different cadres is essential. Taking into account the position thus obtained these writ petitions are disposed of as hereunder:-

¶45

The respondents shall complete the process of settlement of seniority of employees in different categories under the second

¶46

WP(C).Nos.14715 & 14716/2013 4

¶47

respondent within the time stipulated in the aforesaid judgment. After settlement of seniority of Deputy Managers under the second respondent the applications submitted by the employees including the petitioners herein for transfer shall be taken up for consideration in accordance with Part A of Chapter XX, of the Staff Regulations and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month after the settlement of seniority.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

Judge

TKS

Jahangir Kasim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangir Kasim v. State of Kerala

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

Simi Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Bijoy Kumar v., S/O.Velayudhan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Mohammed a. Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Sivasankaran Vs Sitaram Textiles Ltd.

N. Ramaswamy Vs State of Kerala

Rejin.S.Resal Vs the Director of Public Instruction