Dismissed

Unnikrishnan Nair G.S v. Kerala Public Service Commission

Kerala HC29 Jun 2016OP(KAT)/87/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the petitioner's challenge against the cancellation of his appointment and termination from training is not maintainable in this Original Petition. It must be challenged before the Tribunal. The court directed that implementation of the orders is subject to the Tribunal's pending decision.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the original petition holding the challenge against the orders not maintainable and directing implementation to await the Tribunal's decision.

Unnikrishnan Nair G.S Vs Kerala Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/8TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 87 of 2016 (Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE NON-PASSING OF INTERIM ORDER IN OA 1323/2016 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 21-06-2016

¶9

PETITIONER(S):

¶10

UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR G.S AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SIVARAMAN NAIR, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE GE (TRAINEE), KERALA POLICE ACADEMY, REMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680631. CURRENTLY RESIDING AT GIRIJA BHAVAN, SOUTH PAMBADI P.O., KOTTAYAM.682502. BY ADVS.SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN SRI.S.VIJAYAN SRI.P.R.VIBHU SRI.JOLLY GEORGE SRI.K.V.PREMSANKAR SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶13

STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶14

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (TRAINING) & DIRECTOR KERALA POLICE ACADEMY, RAMAVARMAPURAM, THRISSUR-680631. 4. SUBHASH BABU K., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O KAKOTHU BALAN, KAKOTHU HOUSE, PATTIAM, KOTTAYADI, PATHAYAKUNU, KANNUR-670001 R1 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC R2 AND R3 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT

¶15

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(KAT).No. 87 of 2016 (Z)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.1323/2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURESA1 TO A11 DATED 20.6.2016.

¶20

P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE UN NUMBERED RA BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURESRA 1 TO RA9 DATED 20.6.2016.

¶21

P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 1812/2016 IN UN NUMBERED RA DATED 20.6.2016.

¶22

P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO.1864/2016 IN UN NUMBERED RA DATED 23.6.2016.

¶23

P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.6.2016.

¶24

P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2016.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶26

/TRUE COPY/

¶27

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶28

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶33

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A. No. 1323 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. He filed aforesaid original application seeking an order to quash Annexure A4 show cause notice and to direct the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure A5 representation within a time limit that may be fixed by the Tribunal. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is eligible to undergo training to the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in the Police Department (General Executive Branch) under Category III Constabulary (Category No. 317/2007).

¶34

Going by the pleadings and materials on record, the petitioner, while working as Police Constable of KAP - 5 applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in General Executive Branch, pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 28.09.2007 under

¶35

O.P.(KAT) No. 87 of 2016 : 2 :

¶36

constabulary quota. The petitioner, on coming out successful in the selection process, was provisionally appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Trainee) in the General Executive Branch vide Annexure A2 order dated 19.04.2016. By Annexure A3 proceedings dated 12.05.2016, he was sent for one year Basic Training in the Kerala Police Academy from 01.05.2016. While attending the training as aforesaid, the petitioner was served with Annexure A4 show cause notice dated 19.05.2016 under Rule 3(c) of the KS & SSR calling for his explanation as to the inclusion of the 4^th respondent in the rank list as Sl. No. 74(A) based on the order of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 595 of 2015 and the subsequent action, if pursued, which would result in the exclusion of the petitioner from the Basic Training now being attended. The petitioner submitted Annexure A5 explanation on 31.05.2016. Contending that, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Annexure A7 (a) judgment and in view of Annexure A7 order of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1188 of 2013, the 4^th respondent does not have the right to claim reservation under constabulary quota, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1323 of 2016 before the Tribunal seeking an order to quash Annexure A4 and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner has also filed R.A. No. .... of 2016 in O.A. No. 595 of 2015

¶37

O.P.(KAT) No. 87 of 2016

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

seeking an order to review the order of the Tribunal dated 26.10.2015 in O.A. No. 595 of 2015.

¶40

Though O.A. No. 1323 of 2016 and the unnumbered R.A. in O.A. No. 595 of 2015 were listed before the Tribunal on 21.06.2016 and thereafter on 24.06.2016, no interim order was granted against Annexure A4 showcause notice. During the pendency of O.A. No. 1323 of 2016, the 1^st respondent proceeded with Annexure A4 showcause notice and issued Ext.P5 order dated 22.06.2016 cancelling the advice and appointment of the petitioner. Based on Ext. P5 order, the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext. P6 order dated 25.06.2016, terminating the petitioner from Basic Training w.e.f. 25.06.2016. Now the petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Exts. P5 and P6 orders and seeking an order directing the Tribunal to consider the interim relief sought for in the O.A. and also in the R.A.

¶41

We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.

¶42

If the petitioner is aggrieved of Exts. P5 and P6 orders, it is for him to challenge the same before the Tribunal by filing appropriate

¶43

O.P.(KAT) No. 87 of 2016

¶44

: 4 :

¶45

application. As such, the challenge made in this Original Petition against Exts. P5 and P6 orders are not maintainable in law. In that view of the matter, leaving open all the contentions raised by the petitioner against Exts. P5 and P6, this Original Petition is closed.

¶46

However, we make it clear that implementation of Exts. P5 and P6 will be subject to the result of O.A. No. 1323 of 2016 pending before the Tribunal and this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate interim reliefs against Exts. P5 and P6 before the Tribunal.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶51

kmd

¶52

/True copy/

¶53

P.A. To Judge

Unnikrishnan Nair G.S v. Kerala Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan Nair G.S v. Kerala Public Service Commission

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

T.B.Pradeep Vs Kollam Municipal Corporation

Baby Joseph Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sumini Catherine Vs State of Kerala

Neesha M.N Vs Mini T.B

Ramanathan N. Vs the State of Kerala

R.Jalajakumari Vs State of Kerala