Dismissed

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. Reserve Bank of India

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022WP(C)/9506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner sought permission to withdraw with liberty to move afresh after inadvertently suppressing a subsequent selection fact.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move afresh, confined only to the challenge against the subsequent selection.

Dr.Ramakrishnan Vs Reserve Bank of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9506 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

DR.RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
FLAT NO. 2B, C BLOCK,
HEERA SWISS TOW, PIPINMOODU, SASTHAMANGALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

BY ADVS.
P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
SRI.A.ANOOP

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

2 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 9506 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT Dated this the 18^th day of March,2022

¶15

During the course of hearing, it was noticed that the petitioner had not stated the entire facts in the writ petition. Hence, he was called upon filed an affidavit stating the reason for suppressing the fact that he had participated in a subsequent selection to the post of Bank Medical Consultant. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that the mistake was inadvertent and not willful. The petitioner, therefore, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to move afresh.

¶16

Learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer for permission to move afresh. It is submitted that material facts having been suppressed by the petitioner, he is not entitled for such liberty. I find merit in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent, insofar as the challenge against Ext.P2 is concerned. But if the petitioner is proposing to challenge the subsequent selection, the dismissal of this writ petition need not interdict him from doing so.

¶17

Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner's liberty to move afresh will be confined to the subsequent selection alone.

¶18

Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE

¶19

RK

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. Reserve Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ramakrishnan v. Reserve Bank of India

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

Noushad Rahman K.P. Vs Malappuram Municipal Council

Mini Liju Vs State of Kerala

Latha.K Vs the State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary to the Department of Social Justice

Latha Modon Vs State of Kerala

Shiji C.R Vs Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam

Ambily Rajeev Vs State of Kerala