Disposed

Manu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2013WP(C)/20024/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the inordinate delay in completing the selection process for Helper/Peon posts under KSB. The Court noted the process is almost complete. It disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to complete the selection process expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to complete the selection process initiated in Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible.

Manu 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

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20024 of 2013 (C)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

MANU P.

¶8

THACHIRAZHIKATHU, NADUVATHU CHERRY,

¶9

CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM.

¶10

JHONSON P.K.

¶11

VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNOOR P.O., ANCHAL

¶12

KOLLAM-691311.

¶13

MAHENDRAN M.S.

¶14

AISWARYA, MURUNTHAL, PERINAD P.O. KOLLAM-591601.

¶15

BINU V.S. CHITHRALAYAM, CHOLA, PANMANA PUTHENCHANTHA P.O., KOLLAM-691583.

¶16

RAJESH

¶17

THOMPIYIL, KOTTAMPALLY, OACHIRA-690526.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED, (A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

¶22

P.B.2263, SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SASTHAMANGALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶23

THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶24

KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

¶26

R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C).No. 20024 of 2013 (C)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTEE NOTIFICATION DTD.14-10-2008.

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF PETITIONERS 1,2,4 AND 5

¶33

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL LIST PUBLISHED ON 18-12-2012

¶34

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DT.22-4-2013.

¶35

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONS AND INFORMATION DT.9-5-2013.

¶36

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN PAGE NO.4 OF THOZHILVEEDI DT.3-8-2013.

¶37

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THOZHILVEEDI DT.10-8-2013.

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

TKS

P.S. TO JUDGE

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶43

W.P.(C)No.20024 of 2013

¶44

Dated 5^th November, 2013

¶45

JUDGMENT

¶46

The petitioners are applicants for appointment to the post of Helper/Peon under the second respondent Corporation. The third respondent issued Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for appointment to the said post. The grievance of the petitioners is regarding the inordinate delay in completion of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1. It is to redress the grievance relating the same that the captioned writ petition has been filed.

¶47

A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the third respondent. For the purpose of disposal of this writ petition it is suffice to take note of the statements made by the third respondent in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said counter affidavit. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that pursuant to Ext.P1 notification the third respondent received 206003 applications. An OMR test was conducted on 30.10.2010 and thereafter, a probability list of candidates who were found eligible to be included in the ranked list was published subject to the verification of original documents and cycling test, on 18.12.2012. The probability list includes 7978 candidates. The

¶48

WP(C).No.20024/2013 2

¶49

respondents have also conducted verification of the original documents as also cycling test. Therefore, what remains to be done in respect of the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 is the publication of the ranked list. The learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that, in accordance with law, it would be published expeditiously. Taking note of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to complete the selection process initiated as per Ext.P1 as expeditiously as possible.

¶50

TKS

Manu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Asokan Vs State of Kerala

V.T.Gigimon Vs the State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the Director

The Manager, St.Thomas U.P.School Vs Sri.S.Shajahan

Bibitha G. Vs State of Kerala

Francis Joseph Maliyekkal Vs Kerala Water Authority