Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7611 Ker
Judgement Date : 4 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5666 OF 2021(G)
PETITIONER:
SIVADASAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, CHIRAKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM 691 571
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE
SMT.O.A.NURIYA
SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN
SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BT THE PRICIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES (CASHEW), SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 005
2 THE KERALA STATE CASHEW DEVELOPMENT CORPROATION
LIMITED,
CASHEW HOUSE, P.B NO. 13, KOLLAM 691 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
3 SHYAM LAL,
S/O. K.N UNNI, PUNTHALA VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM 691 004
VIPIN VARGHESE SC AND GP BIJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.5666 OF 2021(G) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 4th day of March 2021
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction declaring that the proposed appointment of the 3rd respondent, to the post of Head Office Driver in the 2nd respondent, is highly illegal and unjust.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to promote the petitioner to the existing post of 'Head Office Driver' in the 2nd respondent Corporation, forthwith."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. In view of the
directions being issued, notice to the 3 rd respondent is
dispensed with.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was working as Driver in the 2 nd respondent-
Corporation from 1997 onwards and was regularly appointed as
such in the year 2008. It is stated that going by Ext.P1, which are
the Promotion Rules applicable in the 2 nd respondent-
Corporation, the post of Head Office Driver in the 2 nd
respondent-Corporation is liable to be filled up by promotion
from Factory Driver having VIIth standard and heavy duty
driving licence with 10 years of experience. It is submitted that
the petitioner had all the qualifications and eligibility from
10.11.2018 onwards. It is submitted that while so, an attempt is
being made to appoint the 3rd respondent as Head Office Driver
without adverting to Ext.P1 Rules. The petitioner had preferred
Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent and seeks a
consideration of the same.
Having heard the learned counsel on all sides, I am of the
opinion that Ext.P2 representation preferred by the petitioner
is liable to be considered and disposed of after hearing the
petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent, by any appropriate
means including through video conferencing, before the post is
filled up, if the same is not been filled up yet. An order shall be
passed by the 2nd respondent on the representation preferred by
the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, if no
appointment has been effected to the post, the post shall not be
permanently filled up.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE INTERNAL RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-02-2021 MADE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!