Disposed

P.Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2016WP(C)/1413/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of proceedings and directions for promoting under-graduate clerks or treating their posts at par with graduates. The court disposed of the petition by directing the Government to consider the petitioners' grievances within two months and pass orders after hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Government to consider the petitioners' grievances within two months and pass orders within three months thereafter.

P.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1413 of 2009 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.SASIDHARAN, UDC,KSBC FL 1 SHOP NO.321 (ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08020) AMBALLUR, PALIYEKKARA THRISSUR 680301.

¶8

2. P.S.MANSOOR,UDC, KSBC FL 1 SHOP NO.356

¶9

(ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08012), KASAVAPPADY OLLU THRISSUR 680306.

¶10

3. M.K.THILAKAN, UDC, KSBC FL 1 SHOP

¶11

NO.161 (ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08015), CHOCALLURPPADY GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR 680104.

¶12

4. V.C.JAYACHANDRAN, UDC, KSBC FL 1 SHOP

¶13

NO.149 (ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08003), PEPRINGAVU THRISSUR 682038

¶14

5. R.SAJEEV, UDC, KSBC WAREHOUSE, THRISSUR -68001.

¶15

6. P.P.VENU, UDC, KSBC WAREHOUSE, PATTA, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM 682038.

¶16

7. K.S.SIVADASAN, UDC KSBC WAREHOUSE, THRISSUR -680001.

¶17

8. M.K.AJITH, UDC, KSBC WAREHOUSE,

¶18

CHALAKKUDY - 680307.

¶19

9. M.B.V.V.DEV.UDC, KSBC FL 1 SHOP NO.348

¶20

(ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08014), KAIPARAMBU

¶21

THRISSUR 680546.

¶22

10. V.A. THULASEEDHARAN, UDC, KSBC WAREHOUSE PETTA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM -682038.

¶23

11. V.G. RAMADAS UDC., KSBC FL 1 SHOP NO.323 (ERSTWHILE SHOP NO.08029), TRIPRAYAR, THRISSUR 680566.

¶24

BY ADVS.SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶25

WP(C).No. 1413 of 2009 (R)

¶26

RESPONDENT(S):

¶27

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶28

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695010

¶29

3. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶30

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI REJI JOSPEH R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.J.ELVIN PETER,SC,BEVERAGES CORPN. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH,SC,BEVERAGES CORP

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C).No. 1413 of 2009 (R)

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.8/07/TD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE DEPUTATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.C NO, 15170 OF 2008.

¶38

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶40

¶41

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A TO JUDGE

LSN

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 1413 of 2009

¶47

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2016

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Exts.P6

¶50

and P7 and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to create parallel promotion channel to LD clerks and UD clerks or to treat their post at par with posts in the main stream channel of Assistant Grade posts or to provide departmental test to avail promotion avenues for undergraduate UD clerks .

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents.

¶52

The complaint of the petitioners is that they are under-graduates working as UD clerks and are not provided with promotional avenues as in the case of graduates. They also complain that the posts in the main stream channel are being filled up by the deputation, thereby denying them of their promotion prospects. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent and a statement is placed on record by the second respondent. It is submitted that the complaints raised by the petitioners had been considered by the Managing Director as well as the Board and had been rejected. It is further stated that going by Ext.P2 recruitment rules, the

¶53

W.P.(C). No. 1413 of 2009

¶54

¶55

claim raised by the petitioners cannot be considered. It is further submitted that the fixation of University degree as qualification for promotion will not amount to discrimination as against the petitioners, who are under-graduates. The Government in their counter affidavit also stated that Ext.P2 recruitment rules have been formulated after due discussion and the petitioners, who did not have the qualification prescribed, cannot be accommodated in the higher post. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint raised by the petitioners has not been considered in its proper prospective.

¶56

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent Government to consider the grievances raised by the petitioners. If highlighting a representation their grievances is submitted before the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by the petitioners, the same shall be considered and orders passed after hearing the petitioners within a period of three months thereafter with notice to the second respondent as well.

¶57

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶58

ANU SIVARAMAN, Judge

¶59

lsn

P.Sasidharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sasidharan 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

Mammen Varghese Vs Cochin Corporation Rep.by Its Secretary

City Centre Vs Managing Partner,City Centre

Rajasekhara Kurup Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Provident Fund Commnr. Vs Iyer & Mahesh

The Superintendent Vengathanam Estate Vs the General Secretary

A.K.Sreekumar Vs the Labour Court