Dismissed

Shajikumar v. Vijayalakshmi

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017WA/958/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Appeals Nos. 958/16 and 965/16, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeals against the Single Judge's judgment setting aside a Government order declaring the appellant ineligible for an ARD appointment as a full-time textile shop employee.

What did the court decide?

Full application of law by the Single Judge was endorsed; appellants directed to seek fresh notification based on Ext.P3 order.

Shajikumar Vs Vijayalakshmi — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 958 of 2016 (C) IN WP(C).23/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23/2012 DATED 02-02-2016

¶7

APPELLANT(S):

¶8

SHAJIKUMAR S/O.RAGHAVAN, NEDUVILA THEKKATHIL, CHITTAYAM, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.R.MAYA SRI.JOSE JOSEPH (CHEMPLAYIL) SMT.AMY DENNY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O.UNNIKRIHNA PILLAI, BABY BHAVAN, CHITTAYAM INACHAVILA P.O., KOLLAM.PIN-691 001.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM-691 012

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER KOLLAM-691 012

¶16

5. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶17

R1 BY SRI.JAYAPRADEEP R2-5 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. TEKCHAND

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2017, ALONG WITH WA. 965/2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

SOU..

¶20

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ &

¶21

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J

¶22

W.A. No. 958 of 2016 and W.A. No. 965 of 2016

¶23

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ

¶26

These appeals are filed by the 5^th respondent and the petitioner in W.P(C). No.23 of 2012 calling in question the judgment of learned Single Judge, whereby Ext.P4 order was set aside and Ext.P3 order of the Commissioner was restored.

¶27

The facts of the case are that, notification was issued inviting application for appointment of ARD No.118 at Kunnumpurathmukku, Ward No.2 of Panayam Panchayat. There were two applicants, who are the appellants herein. The selection process concluded with Ext.P1 order, whereby the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 965 of 2016 was appointed. Appeal filed by the appellant in W.A. No.958 of 2016 was dismissed and revision filed by him was disposed of by the Commissioner for Civil Supplies by Ext.P3 order. In this order, the Commissioner found both ineligible and directed that a fresh notification shall

¶28

W.A.Nos.958/16 & 965/2016

¶29

¶30

be issued for inviting applications. He further found that the documents produced by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.958 of 2016 were forged. This order was challenged again in revision filed by both sides and the revisions were disposed of by the Government by Ext.P4 order. In Ext.P4 order, the Government held that the appellant in Writ Appeal No.958 of 2016 was eligible to be considered. It was this order, which was challenged by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.965 of 2016, in Writ Petition No.23 of 2012.

¶31

By the judgment under appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside Ext.P4, finding that the appellant in Writ Appeal No.958 of 2016 was also ineligible. On that basis the learned Single Judge restored Ext.P3 order and directed that further action be initiated for inviting applications and for making appointment on that basis. It is this judgment, which is challenged by both sides.

¶32

We heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.958 of 2016 was that though he was an employee of a textile shop, since the textile shop is not an establishment as defined under Clause 2(9)(a) of the Kerala

¶34

W.A.Nos.958/16 & 965/2016

¶35

¶36

Rationing Order, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that he is ineligible in view of the third proviso to clause 45(1) of the said Order.

¶37

We have considered the submissions made. A reading of third proviso to Clause 45(1) of the Kerala Rationing Order shows that a person who is a full time employee in any establishment shall not be eligible to hold an authorisation to run the retail ration depot under this Order. 'Establishment' has been defined under Clause 2(9)(a) of the Kerala Rationing Order, which reads thus:

¶38

"Clause 2(9)(a) "establishments" means catering establishments, institutions, residential establishments, manufacturing establishments, industries, animal establishments, and any other establishments or class of establishments which the Government or the Commissioner may declare to be establishments for the purpose of this Order."

¶39

A reading of Clause 2(9)(a) shows that certain specific establishments, and those declared by the Commissioner shall be establishments for the purposes of Clause 2(9)(a). This Clause, as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, has relevance in the context of Clause 32 of the Rationing Order, which provides for supply of ration articles to catering establishments, institutions, residential establishments,

¶40

W.A.Nos.958/16 & 965/2016

¶41

¶42

industries and animal establishments etc. On the other hand, if the definition of Clause 2(9)(a) is imported to the third proviso to Clause 45(1), we are afraid that the very definition may not survive a challenge on the ground of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, according to us, the interpretation of the learned Single Judge that the definition of establishments contained in Clause 2(9)(a) should be confined only for the purpose of identifying establishments under Clause 32, appears to be a very reasonable view and does not merit interference in this appeal.

¶43

In such circumstances, we fully endorse the view of the learned Single Judge that the matter has to be taken forward on the basis of Ext.P3 order passed by the Commissioner. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. The appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

¶44

Sd/Antony Dominic, Acting Chief Justice

¶45

Sd/Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶46

sou.6/12.

¶47

// True copy //

Shajikumar v. Vijayalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajikumar v. Vijayalakshmi

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

N.P.Kuriyakose Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala Agricultural University Vs Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

Jojo.K.J Vs the Alway Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 1623

Maya.G Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Somakumaran T. Vs Reema Paul

Malappuram Municipality Vs Nataraj S