Allowed

T.J.Yesudas v. R.Sunilkumar

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016RP/931/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order declaring the petitioner's promotion as Dyeing Supervisor illegal. The review was allowed because the approving schedule was allegedly not notified under the Coir Industries Act, 1953, and the 1st respondent failed to file a counter affidavit.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was allowed and the judgment dated 18.09.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 24909 of 2012 was recalled.

T.J.Yesudas Vs R.Sunilkumar — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 931 of 2015 (K) IN WP(C).24909/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2015 IN W.P. © No. 24909/2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT: -

¶8

--------------------------------------------------------------T.J.YESUDAS, WEAVER, HEAD OFFICE, COIR BOARD, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI - 682 016 (NOW WORKING AS DYEING SUPERVISOR, CENTRAL COIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KAVALOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA).

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 AND 5 IN W.P.(C): -

¶11

R.SUNILKUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN, NALLUVEETUVELIYIL HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA- 688 567.

¶12

THE CHAIRMAN, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

¶13

SECRETARY, COIR BOARD, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682016.

¶14

COIR BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COIR HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682016.

¶15

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶16

R2-R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOBY JOSEPH

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP.No. 931 of 2015 (K) IN WP(C).24909/2012

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶22

ANNEXURE -1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BYELAWS OF COIR BOARD (SERVICES) 1983.

¶23

ANNEXURE-II : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09.10.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, COIR BOARD.

¶24

ANNEXURE-III : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. CB/MRS/RTI/2010/12/I-Vol. VI.C DATED 12.10.2015 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE COIR BOARD.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.V. ASHA, J.

R.P. No. 931 of 2015

¶31

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This review petition is filed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition who had not entered appearance in the writ petition, despite service of notice. The Writ Petition was disposed of declaring that promotion of petitioner herein as Dyeing Supervisor was illegal, as the same was contrary to recruitment rules in Exhibit P2. Review Petitioner has produced Annexure-I, with the contention that the only bye-law which contains the recruitment Rules in the Coir Board issued in accordance with Section 27 of the Coir Industries Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act”), is Annexure-I and the schedule produced along with Exhibit P2 is not the one approved or notified.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

The post of Dyeing Supervisor does not find a place in

¶36

Annexure-I, which is the only bye-law approved in terms of Section 27(2) of the Act, according to the Review Petitioner. The judgment was rendered relying on Exhibit P2, in the absence of any contentions or materials controverting the specific contention in the writ petition that Recruitment Rules in

¶37

R.P. No. 931 of 2015

¶38

¶39

Exhibit P2 was the only one approved by Central Government in terms of the Act. Now it is the case of the Review Petitioner that the proposal for amendment to the Schedule as per Exhibit P2 was not approved and the same has not come into force and it is not notified by the Government of India, as provided in Section 27(2) of the Act, which mandates confirmation by Central Government and publication in official gazette for enforcement of any recruitment rule or its amendment.

¶40

Even though sufficient time was granted to the writ Petitioner who is the 1^st respondent in this Review Petition, since January 2016, no counter affidavit is filed so far. Therefore there is every reason to presume that the contention raised by the Review Petitioner is correct. Hence, in view of the contentions raised in the review petition, with the support of Annexure-I, I find it necessary to review the judgment.

¶41

In the above circumstances, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 18.09.2015 in the Writ Petition © No. 24909 of 2012 is recalled.

¶42

Post the writ petition for hearing.

¶43

P.V. ASHA, JUDGE

¶44

DMR/-

T.J.Yesudas v. R.Sunilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.J.Yesudas v. R.Sunilkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Sadasivan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Siddeekh K. & Another Vs State of Kerala

Elizabeth Francies Vs Tahsildar, Kochi.

Anil Kumar T.V. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission &

Kumaresan Vs District Collector,Thiruvananthapuram

Shreekanth S.K and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others