Kerala High Court
Mijo K Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 29 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 6799 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
MIJO K. JOSEPH,
KARIYIL HOUSE,
KANJIRAPALLY P.O.,
KOTTAYAMA 686 507.
BY ADVS.
BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695
001.
3 DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
6TH FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.
4 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM.
5 MANAGER,
ST. DOMINIC'S COLLEGE,
KANJIRAPALLY 686 512.
6 PRINCIPAL,
ST. DOMINIC'S COLLEGE,
KANJIRAPALLY 686 512.
BY ADVS.
KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
THOMAS GEORGE
SMT. PARVATHY .K-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022.
The singular plea of the petitioner is for a direction
to the 5th respondent to promote him as a Lower Division
Clerk (LD Clerk) in St.Dominic's College Kanjirappaly, to
the vacancy that arose, according to him, on 01.02.2022.
He say that, he is entitled to be offered such promotion
in the light of Section (62)(2)(a), read with Section 61(3)
& 61(4) of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act, 1985, as
also under the sanction of Ext.P11; and therefore, that
continued refusal of the Management to do so is illegal
and unlawful.
2. I have heard Sri.Baby Isaac Illickal - learned
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Kurian George
Kannanthanam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by
Sri.Tony George Kannanthanam - learned counsel
appearing for respondents 5 and 6; and Smt.Parvathy
Kottol - learned Government Pleader, appearing for
respondents 1 to 4.
Sri.Baby Isaac Illickal alleged that the attempt of the
Management appears to force his client to offer a letter
of relinquishment, so that they can appoint/promote a
person of their choice and that under that scheme, they
have already been able to obtain such a letter from
another Lab Assistant. He submitted that, therefore,
unless this Court intervenes urgently, the illegal design
of the Management will bear fruitious.
Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam - learned Senior
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
Counsel, however, controverted the afore submissions
saying that respondents 5 and 6 will only act as per law
and after verifying whether petitioner is entitled to be
offered promotion, taking into account his eligibility and
qualifications and also whether he has made any
relinquishment to the said post. He submitted that,
therefore, if this Court is inclined, his clients are willing to
consider the claim of the petitioner on the afore
touchstone and issue an appropriate order, so that the
controversy projected can be given a quietus.
Smt.Parvathy Kottol - learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the disputation in this case are solely
between the petitioner and the Management of College
and that official respondents have no role to play at this
stage.
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
I must say that the afore suggestion of the learned
Senior Counsel appeals to me because, as of now, the
petitioner does not have a case that promotion has been
effected. His apprehension is that he will be denied the
said opportunity and that documents are likely to be
created showing that he has relinquished such
promotion. His specific contention is that he has not
done so and that he is eligible to be offered for such
promotion.
In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the 5 th
respondent - Manager of the College is obligated to
consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the
afore assertions, as also the statutory provisions.
Thus, I order this writ petition to the limited extent
of directing the 5th respondent to consider the claim of
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
the petitioner for promotion, adverting to his afore
submissions, as also Ext.P10; and after affording him as
also any other person interested, an opportunity of being
heard, leading to an appropriate order and necessary
action thereon as expeditiously as is possible.
I make it clear that since I have not considered any
of the rival contentions of the parties on its merits, all of
them are left open; as also the remedies of the petitioner
to seek any order that he may require from the
Government in the meanwhile with respect to his
qualifications and such other.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Raj/29.06.2022.
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6799/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF
THE PETITIONER DATED 23.07.2014.
Exhibit P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE DTD. 18.07.2014.
Exhibit P3 PHOTO COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER
DTD. 27.2.2015 OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.
03.10.2015.
Exhibit P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC 38124/2016 DTD.
21.02.2017.
Exhibit P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.
1538/2017/.H.EDN. DATED 17.08.2017.
Exhibit P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 16157/2015
DTD. 04.01.2017.
Exhibit P8 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DTD. 26.05.2017.
Exhibit P9 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DTD. 11.12.2017.
Exhibit P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE
W.P.(C)No. 6799 of 2022.
PETITIONER DTD. 23.06.2018.
Exhibit P11 PHOTO COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER
DTD. 01.01.2016.
Exhibit P12 PHOTO COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE
PETITIONER DTD. 29.01.2022.
Exhibit P12 (A) PHOTO COPY OF THE TEST RESULT OF THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P13 PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DTD. 11.05.2009.
Exhibit P14 PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
SUBMITTED BY SRI.TOJO JOSE DATED
21.2.2022
