Dismissed

R.Chandrasekharan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2016WP(C)/823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached Kerala High Court seeking direction to 4th respondent to permit re-joining duty after B.Ed course. Court observed petitioner had been permitted to re-join and closed the writ petition as infructuous. Matter of regularisation left open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition stood closed as infructuous; regularisation of period left open for appropriate authority.

R.Chandrasekharan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 823 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN

¶8

NON VOCATIONAL TEACHER IN GENERAL FOUNDATION COURSE SREE RAMA VILASAM NSS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHIRAKKADAVU, THEKKETHUKAVALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

¶10

SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682024.

¶14

4. THE MANAGER

¶15

SREE RAMA VILASAM NSS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHIRAKKADAVU, THEKKETHUKAVALA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 519.

¶16

5. THE PRINCIPAL

¶17

SREE RAMA VILASAM NSS VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL CHIRAKKADAVU, THEKKETHUKAVALA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 519.

¶18

R4-R5 BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A.FAYAZ

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 823 of 2016 (C)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DT 5-11-2001.

¶24

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3-11574/01 DT 5-2-2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.176/2013/G.EDN DT 29-5-2013 OF THE GOVERNMENT.

¶26

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANAGER.

¶27

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LIEN CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MANAGER DT 2-12-2014/

¶28

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MG UNIVERSITY DT 2-12-2014.

¶29

EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANAGER DT 1-1-2016

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶35

===================== W.P.(C) No.823 of 2016 - C

¶36

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

¶37

Dated this the 09^th day of February, 2016

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner had approached this Court, seeking a

¶40

direction to the 4^th respondent to permit the petitioner to re-join duty, after the completion of the B.Ed course.

¶41

The petitioner's contention was that the

¶42

respondents 4 and 5 refused to permit him to join duty, which is denied by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had never made an application before the Principal for re-joining duty.

¶43

In any event, since the petitioner has now been permitted to re-join duty, the writ petition need not be kept pending. The petitioner shall approach the appropriate authority

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.823 of 2016 - C

¶46

for regularisation of the period, when he was refused such re-joining, which shall be considered by the appropriate authority, after issuing notice to the Manager. The contention of both parties are left open, with respect to the regularisation.

¶47

The writ petition would stand closed as infructuous.

¶48

Sd/K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶49

SB/09/02/2016

¶50

// true copy //

¶51

P.A to Judge.

R.Chandrasekharan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Chandrasekharan v. the 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

R. Jayasankar Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation.

Sreejith A.S Vs State of Kerala

K.U. Mini Vs Kerala Water Authority

Leena A.S. Vs State of Kerala

Bindukala P.N Vs the Manager

George John Vs Joseph Sebastian