Dismissed

Kailas Mohan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2018WP(C)/2887/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notification inviting applications and sought an independent agency to conduct selection. Court held selection was underway under a prior judgment without the claimed requirement for independent agency, rendering the petition infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint an independent agency for selection was denied as the proceedings were conducted under a prior judgment and the challenged notification was superseded.

Kailas Mohan Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2887 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KAILAS MOHAN, AGDD 24 YEARS, S/O.M.V. MOHANAN, MANALUMALIL, KANICHAR P.O., KANICHAR. BY ADVS.SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.BALU TOM

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED SECRETARY TO DEVASWOM (REVENUE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANJIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673006, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶11

3. THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 006. 4. SREE TRICHERUMANNA ALIAS KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, P.O. KOTTIYOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 651, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

¶12

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH R2 & R3 BY SMT.P.K.RADHIKA, SC R4 BY ADVS. SRI.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN SMT.SATHYA SHREEPRIYA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

¶14

WP(C).No. 2887 of 2018 (I)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20/11/2013 INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR VARIOUS POSTS IN THE DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT-P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 37493/2016 DATED 17/08/2017.
EXHIBIT-P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 01/12/2017 INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR VARIOUS POSTS BY THE DEVASWOM.
EXHIBIT-P4	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P(C) 41486/2017 DATED 21/12/2017.
EXHIBIT-P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/01/2018 ISSUED BY SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM.
EXHIBTI-P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18/01/2018.
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 12.1.2018.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶19

mbr/ 20.03.2018.

¶20

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No.2887 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 notification for appointment to various posts under the 4^th respondent Devaswom. On the basis of the interim order passed on 31.01.2018, the 4^th respondent has issued another notification and proceedings for selection is on half way based on that. The petitioner has sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to appoint an independent agency with a retired judicial officer as Chairman to conduct test and interview to fill up the vacancy to various posts under the Malabar Devaswom Board pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. As Ext.P5 notification itself is not in existence now and the respondents have already issued another notification and conducted a written test there is no question of appointing an independent agency for selection pursuant to Ext.P5 notification. Even otherwise I do not think that there should be a direction as sought for by the petitioner, as the selection that is being held is pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment of this Court. In that judgment there is no such direction that the selection should be conducted under the supervision of any other agency as claimed by the petitioner.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.2887/18

¶26

:2:

¶27

In the above circumstances, I do not find that the 2^nd relief sought in this writ petition can be granted. Therefore, as the first relief is already become infructuous, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶30

rkc

Kailas Mohan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailas Mohan 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

T.K. Sugathan Vs Teeka Ram Meena

C. Srinivasan Vs Anil Kumar

Sudheesh T.S Vs the Cochin Municipal Corporation

Hazeena M.N. Vs the Kerala Public Service Commission

John Galbret D. Netto Vs State of Kerala

Sukesh C.K. Vs Principal Secretary, Industries Department