Disposed

Meena. E v. the Registrar

Kerala HC11 Sept 2018WP(C)/29018/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A sweeper aggrieved by new selection proceedings via Employment Exchange sought protection for her continued service. The court held that since the petitioner was appointed without selection, those proceedings were not faultful but directed the third respondent to consider her claim during the interview.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent to consider the petitioner's claim along with the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange during the interview.

Meena. E Vs the Registrar — 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

TUESDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 20TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 29018 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MEENA. E

¶8

AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. BHASKARAN, ANGOLIVAYAL HOUSE, IRIGADAN PALLI, CHEVAYOOR P.O., KOZHIKDOE - 673 017

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE REGISTRAR COMMISSION FOR KERALA STATE SCHEDULED AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, AYYANKALI BHAVAN, KANAKA NAGAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

¶12

2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL OFFICE, IMG CAMPUS, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶13

3 THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, IMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶14

4 GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶15

BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT

¶16

SMT. MARY BENJEMIN, SC SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 29018 of 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who is working as a Sweeper

¶22

under the 3^rd respondent is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the 3^rd respondent to engage fresh hands through Employment Exchange.

¶23

2. Petitioner's appointment was admittedly not through Employment Exchange or after subjecting her to any process of selection. Therefore the proceedings initiated by the respondents to make selection through Employment Exchange cannot be found fault with.

¶24

However, as the petitioner has been working under the 3^rd respondent since the year 2005, there shall be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner also, at the time of interview along with others sponsored by Employment Exchange.

¶25

This writ petition is disposed of,

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 29018 of 2018

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK OFFICE, DATED 17/5/2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/9/2015. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/4/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF A REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17/10/2014. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/7/2018.

Meena. E v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena. E v. the Registrar

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

Sanu Raj C.N. Vs Managing Director, Consumerfed

Vinu.v.v. Vs the State of Kerala

V. Raghavan Vs Director General

Indian Maritime University Vs Cochin Port Trust

Syam Kumar.N. Vs Sree Thricherumanna Alias Kottiyoor Devaswom

P.K.Mohankumar Vs G.Santhosh