Dismissed

Remjith. E.R v. Vipin Kumar v

Kerala HC8 Aug 2017OP(KAT)/290/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined interference in a review application filed against an Administrative Tribunal order that restored a service promotion petition for fresh consideration. The Court held that the Tribunal had afforded a hearing and no questions were left unanswered. Consequently, the original petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The High Court declined interference and dismissed the original petition.

Remjith. E.R Vs Vipin Kumar v — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/17TH SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

OP(KAT).No. 290 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN RA/APPLICANT IN OA:

¶7

REMJITH. E.R AGED 38 YEARS, S/O RADHAKRISHNAN (LATE), LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUMARAKAM, NOW WORKING AS VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, CHERIYAZHEEKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY) RESIDING AT ELAYASSERIL, CHERIYAZHEEKKAL P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690573.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE R.A.& RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/ RESPONDENTS IN OA:

¶10

-----------------------------------------------------------------1. VIPIN KUMAR V AGED 33 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN NAIR, VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, GVHS, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-686661, RESIDING AT PRASANNA BHAVAN, ERAVOOR, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542. 2. VINOD KUMAR.A. AGED 35 YEARS, S/O APPUKUTTAN NAIR, VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, GVHS, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690101, RESIDING AT NADUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELIYANNOOR, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543. 3. JAYASANKAR.P. AGED 41 YEARS, S/O PADMANABHAN NAIR, VOCATIONAL INSTRUCTOR, GVHS, KANJANGAD SOUTH, KASARAGOD-671315, RESIDING AT MANDAPATHIL VEEDU, MITRA NKETAN P.O., VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695543.

¶11

OP(KAT).No. 290 of 2017 (Z)

¶12

ALL KERALA VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY INSTRUCTORS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO. 3/97, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, SAMEER SIDEEQUI P., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O M.SIDEEKHUL KABEER, RESIDING AT A-KAUSAR, PALLIVETTA, ARYANAD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542.

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.

¶15

R5 and R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH

¶16

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP(KAT).No. 290 of 2017 (Z)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITION --------	ER(S)' ------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OA 960/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE AI TO A14 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN O.A.NO.960/2016(2ND RESPONDENT IN THE O.A.) ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R2(A).
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA NO.960/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE A15.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.10.2016 IN OA NO.960/2016 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE R.A.NO.3 OF 2017 IN OA NO.960/2016 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE RAI TO RA10 ALONG WITH MA TO JOIN TOGETHER AND MA SEEKING LEAVE.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.A.NO.3 OF 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN R.A.NO.3 OF 2017 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE R1(A) BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.07.2017 IN RA N0.3 OF 2017 IN OA.NO.960/2016 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDE --------	NT(S)' ------	EXHIBITS : NIL ---------

¶20

/TRUE COPY/

¶21

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶22

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ

¶23

¶24

O.P.(KAT) No. 290 of 2017

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Ramachandra Menon , J.

¶28

Challenge is at the instance of the 1^st respondent in R.A. No. 3/2017 in O.A. No. 960/2016 against Ext. P8 order dated 07.07.2017 passed by the Tribunal, whereby Ext. P4 order already passed by the Tribunal came to be recalled and the Original Petition has been restored to file for fresh consideration.

¶29

Heard Sri. Jaju Babu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6.

¶30

The crux of the case put forth by the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner was working as Laboratory Technical Assistant in the Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department, who had claimed for promotion to the post of Vocational Instructor in terms of his credentials and the relevant Rules. Grievance projected before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 960 of 2016 was with the following

¶31

O.P.(KAT) No. 290 of 2017.

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

prayers :

¶34

“(a) Declare that the action of the respondents in not promoting the applicant as Vocational Instructor in Fisheries is arbitrary, illegal and unjust.

¶35

(b) Declare that the applicant is having all the necessary qualifications for promotion to the post of Vocational Instructor in Fisheries as prescribed in the Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary Education Subordinate Service Rules, 2004;

¶36

(c) Direct the 2nd respondent to promote the applicant as Vocational Instructor in Fisheries in terms of his seniority in Annexure A9

¶37

(d) Direct the respondent to treat the applicant as qualified for promotion as Vocational Instructor in Fisheries, more so, in view of Annexures A10 to A14;

¶38

(e) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

After hearing, the Tribunal passed Ext. P4 order, whereby the eligibility to be considered for promotion to the said post was declared and it was accordingly that the Department was directed to consider the claim. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows :

¶40

O.P.(KAT) No. 290 of 2017.

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

“10. Considering the entire issues, I am of the view that the contention of the applicant is to be accepted. In such circumstances, it is declared that the applicant is having the required qualification for promotion to the post of Vocational Instructor in Fisheries as prescribed in the Special Rules. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the applicant's claim for promotion to the post of Vocational Instructor in Fisheries in terms of his seniority.”

¶43

After passing the said order, few persons and an Association approached the Tribunal by filing Review Application No. 3 of 2017 vide Ext. P5, stating that the matter required to be reconsidered. It is also borne out by the records, particularly the contents of Ext. P8 order passed by the Tribunal, that some additional materials were produced along with review application. The 'locus standi' of the review applicants was challenged by the petitioner, pointing out that all the review applicants [except the Association] were holding the higher post of 'Vocational Instructor' and as such, they could not validly maintain the review application before the Tribunal. The instance projected by the Association was also sought to be challenged with reference to the 'locus standi'; contending that there cannot be any 'public interest litigation' in service matter, in view of

¶44

O.P.(KAT) No. 290 of 2017.

¶45

: 4 :

¶46

the law declared by the Apex Court in Bholanath Mukherjee and Ors. Vs. Ramakrishnan Mission Vivekananda Centenary College and Ors [(2011) 5 SCC 464].

¶47

On going through the contents of Ext. P8 order, it is seen that the Tribunal has not passed any verdict or expressed any opinion with regard to this aspect, but has observed that the materials already produced along with the review application, prima facie, would show that matter required reconsideration. The said satisfaction expressed by the Tribunal, based on the materials produced along with review application, does not, for the time being, requires scrutiny of this Court in exercise of the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal has allowed the review application placing the matter for reconsideration, of course, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. This Court does not have any reason to believe that the question of 'locus standi' raised before the Tribunal will not be considered, while passing the final verdict in the O.A. The additional materials produced before the Tribunal, to the extent they are relevant also would be considered by the Tribunal as it is open for the Tribunal for causing production of the same even by other means. In the said circumstances, leaving all

¶48

O.P.(KAT) No. 290 of 2017.

¶49

: 5 :

¶50

questions open, to be considered by the Tribunal in the O.A., which is stated as restored to file, interference is declined and the Original Petition is dismissed.

¶51

sd/-

¶52

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

sd/-

SHIRCY V., JUDGE

kmd

/True copy/

P.A. to Judge

Remjith. E.R v. Vipin Kumar v

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remjith. E.R v. Vipin Kumar v

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

United Breweries Limited Vs State of Kerala

Janardhanan.a.T Vs the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswaom Board

The District Officer, Public Service Commission Vs Asha Devi L.

Abdul Razak.K Vs the Administrator of Lakshadweep

Sethu Lakshmi N Pearson Vs State of Kerala

Union of India Vs Sini T.R.