Dismissed

Lijo Varghese v. the Project Director, Ksacs

Kerala HC9 Mar 2016RP/182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a review petition filed by four counsellors seeking review of a writ judgment that rejected their claim of discrimination. The bench held that no ground for review was made out as the original petition did not raise the specific discrimination issue and no persons allegedly discriminated against were impleaded.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with no ground for review being made out.

Lijo Varghese Vs the Project Director, Ksacs — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/19TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 182 of 2016 (F) IN WP(C).7058/2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 7058/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 9-12-15

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. LIJO VARGHESE

¶9

PARACKAL HOUSE, KALLUPALAM, ANGAMALI P.O WORKING AS COUNSELOR, ICTC, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE KOTHAMANGALAM.

¶10

2. SHINY GEORGE THEKKEVEETIL, MENANGADI, WAYANAD WORKING AS COUNSELOR, ICTC, DISTRICT HOSPITAL MANANTHAWADY P.O.

¶11

3. SAJI AUGUSTIN V. VELLIAMKANDATHIL, AYLAMOOLA, EDAVAKA P.O WORKING AS COUNSELOR, ICTC, DISTRICT HOSPITAL MANANTHAWADY P.O.

¶12

4. SANITHA K.

¶13

K.S. NIVAS, POYLOOR P.O, THUVAKAUNNU KANNUR WORKING AS COUNSELOR, ICTC, GENERAL HOSPITAL THALASSERY P.O.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS

¶15

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, KSACS KERALA STATE AIDS CONTROL SOCIETY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶17

2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (F & W) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶18

3. NATIONAL AIDS CONTROL ORGANISATION

¶19

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE 6TH AND 9TH FLOORS, CHANDERLOK BUILDINGS, 36 JANPATH, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶20

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE R BY SRI.LEO GEORGE

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RP.No. 182 of 2016 (F) IN WP(C).7058/2013

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶25

ANNEXURE 1 COPY OF ORDER NO.C2-924/05 DATED 6.1.06

¶26

ANNEXURE 2 COPY OF ORDER NO.321/05 DATED 26.11.05

¶27

ANNEXURE 3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C-6391/04/DHM DATED 3.5.06 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAWADY

¶28

ANNEXURE 4 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 2.2.13 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL OFFICER.

¶29

ANNEXURE 5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.10 IN WPC NO.15641/2010

¶30

ANNEXURE 6 COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.2279/2012/H & FWD DATED 7.7.12

¶31

ANNEXURE 7 COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 4907/2012/ADMN. /III/KSACS DATED 3.8.12 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶32

ANNEXURE 8 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WPC 7058/2013

¶33

ANNEXURE 9 COPY OF THE JDUGMENT DATED 9.12.15 IN WPC NO.7058/2013.

¶34

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶39

=====================

¶40

R.P No.182 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.7058 of 2013 - F

¶41

====================== Dated this the 09^th day of March, 2016

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

The petitioners seek review of the aforesaid judgment

¶44

on the ground that only the petitioners, who were appointed for

¶45

one year term, were denied continuance and others, who were appointed for such term prior to the petitioners' appointment were continued in the respondent. At the out set, it is to be noticed that the petitioner had not raised such a contention in the writ petition and none of the persons, who are alleged to have been continued, have been impleaded in the writ petition.

¶46

A reading of the judgment also would indicate that

¶47

the respondent had been making appointments on contract basis with regular selections being conducted. The petitioners who were once appointed were again selected in the subsequent

¶48

¶49

R.P No.182 of 2016 in W.P.(C) No.7058 of 2013 - F

¶50

selection. This Court also noticed the contention of the respondent that a more transparent selection process is contemplated by the Government and that if the petitioners are eligible, the petitioners also could apply under the selection. The specific ground of discrimination raised in the writ petition was also rejected by this Court, relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There are no grounds for review and the petitioners seek a re-hearing of the case which is impermissible going by the reported decision in State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612] .

¶51

In such circumstance, no ground for review is made out, going by the aforecited judgment. The review petition would stand dismissed.

¶52

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

SB/09/03/2016

¶54

// true copy //

¶55

P.A to Judge.

Lijo Varghese v. the Project Director, Ksacs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijo Varghese v. the Project Director, Ksacs

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

K.P.Sachitha Vs L.Sivaraman

George Thomas Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Abida Vs State of Kerala

Radhika P Vs Sri.M.R.Unni

Mohammed Ashraf Vs Sri.M.P.Ajithkumar

K.K.Kunjachan Vs K K Jalan