Kerala High Court
Dr. Geetha B.S vs Sri. K. P. Sudheer on 15 February, 2024
Con.Case(C) No.1455/2023 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Thursday, the 15th day of February 2024 / 26th Magha, 1945
CONTEMPT CASE(C) NO. 1455 OF 2023(S) IN WP(C) 28887/2016
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DR. GEETHA B.S, W/O. S.S. DAYAL, AGED 55 YEARS,
SCIENTIST - C, KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE,-
TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004,
RESIDING AT 17 D1 CONDOR CARNATIONS, OPPOSITE INFOSYS,
KULATHOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 583.
BY ADVOCATES M/S. S. SUJIN & NITA N.S.
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
SRI. K.P. SUDHEER, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT,
KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADVOCATE SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN
This Contempt of court case (civil) having come up for orders on
15.02.2024, the court on the same day passed the following:
P.T.O.
Con.Case(C) No.1455/2023 2/4
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
..................................................
Con.Case (C) No.1455 of 2023
..................................................
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2024
ORDER
This Court, in the judgment dated 4 th November 2022,
categorically found that the petitioner has to be given similar
treatment as those persons covered by Ext.P7 judgment and
granted to the similarly situated persons in Exts.P8, P12 and
P13. It was further stipulated that the manner in which those
similarly situated persons were found eligible and promoted,
the same assessment should be adhered to in the case of the
petitioner as well. It is also to be noticed that there was no
argument at any point of time that the promotions given earlier,
as noted above, were either wrong or illegal so as to attract the
principles of negative equality.
2. In such circumstances, the respondent cannot deviate
from the directions of this Court or act contrary to the
directions set out therein.
3. An additional affidavit filed today states, through
Ext.P7, that certain scientists have been promoted by evading
the assessment process. There was no such contention to date.
The affidavit also does not show what steps were taken to
correct the alleged wrong promotions. The respondent cannot
be allowed to have double standards when it comes to
assessing similarly situated persons.
4. Faced with the above situation, the learned Counsel for
the respondents seeks time to take appropriate action to duly
comply with the judgment of this Court.
Post on 15.03.2024
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JUDGE
H/O
RK
15-02-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1455/2023
Exhibit P7 of WP(C) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.1149/2011 DATED
28887/2016 30.3.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P8 of WP(C) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3300/ESTT.1/2015/JNTBGRI DATED
28887/2016 1.9.2015.
Exhibit P12 of WP(C) COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.4250/ESTT-1/2015/JNTBGRI
28887/2016 DATED 23.6.2016.
Exhibit P13 of WP(C) COPY OF THE ORDER NO.125/2016/KSCSTE DATED 17.8.2016
28887/2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
15-02-2024 /True Copy/ Deputy Registrar
