Disposed

Roshni R v. Sameer

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019OP(KAT)/21/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition challenging the broader promotional review process. The court observed that the petitioner was already promoted and that departmental bifurcation had rendered the specific issue regarding Women Protection Officers non-relevant in this new forum.

What did the court decide?

The original petition is disposed of as the issue is no longer relevant due to departmental bifurcation and the petitioner's promotion.

Roshni R Vs Sameer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.21 OF 2014(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 2041/2013 DATED 10-092013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

ROSHNI R

¶11

PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, GOVERNMENT CHILDREN'S HOME, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 631.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 SAMEER M. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER, COURT COMPLEX, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM - 676 121.

¶15

2 BIJU P., ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER,, NEAR COURT COMPOUND, THALASSERY, THALASSERY COURT'S P.O., KANNUR - 670 101.

¶16

3 RAGAPRIYA K.G. PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, GOVERNMENT CHILDREN'S HOME, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶17

4 VIJAYAPRATHAPAN K., ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA - 1.

¶18

5 G.VIJAYACHANDRAN

¶19

PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, ALAPPUZHA - 1.

¶20

OP(KAT) No. 21 of 2014

¶21

..2..

¶22

6 SURESH BABU ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶23

7 SIJU BEN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, KOLLAM.

¶24

8 MANZOOR A. PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 1.

¶25

9 P.JAYAKUMAR CITY PROBATION OFFICER GR.II, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 101.

¶26

10 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶27

11 THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶28

R10-11 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶29

OTHER PRESENT:

¶30

SR.GP SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶31

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

..3..

¶33

OP(KAT) No. 21 of 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2019

¶36

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶37

The dispute before the Tribunal was with respect

¶38

to the promotion chances of Probation Officers Gr.II; which the applicant/petitioner was, to the

¶39

post of Probation Officer Grade I.

¶40

The Central statute, i.e., the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, contemplated Probation Officers Grade II and Probation Officers Grade I while the Special Rules framed by the State included Probation Officers Grade II and Women Protection Officers in the feeder category. The challenge was to the inclusion of Women Protection Officers in the feeder category as per the Special Rules. The Tribunal negatived the challenge finding that the inclusion of Women Protection Officers cannot be found to be illegal

¶41

or arbitrary. One of the applicants, who was a Probation Officer Grade II, challenged the order

¶42

before the this Court in the instant original

¶43

..4..

¶44

OP(KAT) No. 21 of 2014

¶45

petition.

¶46

As of now, the petitioner has been promoted. The

¶47

learned Government Pleader submits that the issue now agitated in this original petition is no more relevant for reason of there being a bifurcation of the Department as Social Welfare Department and Women & Child Development Department. The Women Protection Officers are part of the Women &

¶48

Child Development Department and they can no

¶49

longer claim promotion to the post of

¶50

Probationary Officer Grade I.

¶51

In such circumstances, the above submission is recorded and the original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

Bka/17.12.2019

..5..

OP(KAT) No. 21 of 2014

¶61

APPENDIX

¶62

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2013 IN O.A.NO.2041/2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶64

EXHIBIT P2	EXHIBIT P2. TRUE OF O.A.2041/2013 ANNEXURES.	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM TOGETHER WITH
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 14.05.2007	GO (MS) NO. 24/2007
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 09.09.2008	GO (MS) NO.51/2008
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 30.06.2011	GO(MS) NO. 221/2011
ANNEXURE A3 (A)	TRUE ENGLISH TRA	NSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF GO 07-.11.2008	(MS) NO. 450/2008 DATED
ANNEXURE A4 A	TRUE ENGLISH TRA	NSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF GO 01.02.2008	(MS) NO.10/2008 DATED
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE OFFENDERS RULES,	KERALA PROBATION OF 1960
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES FO SERVICE 1992	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF R KERALA SOCIAL WELFARE
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA SOCIAL WE RULES	RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LFARE SERVICES SPECIAL
ANNEXURE A9	TRUE COPY OF GO 27.12.2012	(P) NO. 77/2012 DATED

Roshni R v. Sameer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni R v. Sameer

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

Union of India Vs Prakash Sam

Sreelekha C.K Vs State of Kerala

N.R.Murali Vs Johnson P. John

The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, Vs Sreenivasan.v.K

Mahesh v.M., Vs State of Kerala

Shajatnan K.H., Vs State of Kerala