Dismissed

P.N.Krishnan v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager

Kerala HC9 Dec 2014WP(C)/24507/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a medically de-categorised railway employee, challenged his mandatory commercial clerk training. Respondents admitted finding him unsuitable for the role and cancelled the training order before hearing, leading the court to dismiss the petition on that basis.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner to continue in supernumerary post until a suitable post is identified.

P.N.Krishnan Vs Additional Divisional Railway Manager — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 24507 of 2014 (K)

PETITIONER(S):

---------------

P.N.KRISHNAN,

AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN EMBRANTHIRI, (CONSTABLE NO.8301747) WORKING AS CONSTABLE (SNP), RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SHORANUR RAILWAY STATION, SHORANUR, NOW RESIDING AT PULERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD, PERUVAYAL P.O., CALICUT-673 008.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RAJESH NAIR

¶11

SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN.

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

-------------

¶14

1. ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALAKKAD DIVISION, PALGHAT, PIN-678 002.

¶15

2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PIN-678 002.

¶16

3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL BRANCH), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PIN-678 002.

¶17

4. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PALGHAT DIVISION, PIN-678 002.

¶18

5. INSPECTOR OF RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SHORANUR RAILWAY STATION, SHORANUR-679 121.

¶19

6. CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,

¶20

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, 6TH FLOOR, MOOR MARKET COMPLEX, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶21

7. CHIEF MEDICAL DIRECTOR,

¶22

5TH FLOOR, MOOR MARKET COMPLEX, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶23

BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,RAILWAYS BY SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

RVS.

¶26

WP(C).No. 24507 of 2014 (K)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

EXHIBIT P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J.MD 43/3/PNK DT. 12-2-13 ISSUED BY ADDL.CMS/PKD.
EXHIBIT P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE NO.J/XP.11/MD/VOL.II DT.6-3-13 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF R4.
EXHIBIT P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CARDIOLOGIST AT THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, MALABAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, CALICUT ON 26-12-2013.
EXHIBIT P4	: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DT.28-12-13 ISSUED BY THE MALABAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES.
EXHIBIT P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (NO.SPR/4/SR/9102106/2013) DT.3-1-14 ISSUED BY R5.
EXHIBIT P6	: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.5-2-14 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	: TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE (NO.J/P268/II/CC/VOL.5 DT.7-3-14 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P8	: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED UNDER RTI ACT BY SUDHAKARAN ERUMBALA ON 8-4-14.
EXHIBIT P9	: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY (NO.J/P.PG/RTI/2014-15/009 DT.5-5-2014 TO EXT.P8.
EXHIBIT P10	: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE HELD ON 22-1-14.
EXHIBIT P11	: TRUE COPY OF (NO.J/XP.11/MD/VOL.II DT. 16-5-14) ISSUED BY R4.
EXHIBIT P12	: TRUE COPY OF THE NO.J/P268/II/CC/VOL.5 DT.4-9-2014 ISSUED BY R2.
EXHIBIT P13	: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.9-9-14 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R2.
EXHIBIT P14	: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PERMANENT DISABILITY ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF MEDICAL BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE DT.14-3-2006 NO.3932/MR/DDRC/02).
EXHIBIT P15	: TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.42011/3/2014-ESTT(RES) DT.6-6-2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P16	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.30TH MAY 2014 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 12028/14.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶31

-----------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P. (C) No. 24507 of 2014

¶39

---------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2014.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Railway, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

¶42

The petitioner, a medically de-categorised employee, presently working in a supernumerary post, filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in subjecting him to commercial clerk training at Zonal Railway Training Institute, Thiruchirappally.

¶43

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on instructions, has submitted that it is subsequently found that the petitioner is not suitable to be appointed as Commercial Clerk and as such, there is no need to subject him to training in that regard.

¶44

W.P.(C.) No.24507/2014 -2-

¶45

Through proceedings dated 04.12.2014, the respondents are said to have taken a decision not to subject the petitioner to any training. The learned Standing Counsel has placed before this Court the file containing the proceedings in that regard.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances, based on the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel coupled with the material produced before this Court by him, it is evident that the petitioner's grievance stands answered inasmuch as he has not been subjected to any training.

¶47

The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner will be allowed to continue in the supernumerary post until another suitable post is identified and the petitioner is placed in the said post.

¶48

Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, this Court disposes of the writ petition without any necessity of further adjudication.

¶49

sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C.) No.24507/2014 -3-

P.N.Krishnan v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Krishnan v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager

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

Anupriya S. Vs University of Calicut

T.v.Krishnan Namboothiri Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

S.Gireesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj.v. Vs State of Kerala

Haripriya K.S Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha Chandroth Vs the State of Kerala