Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

P.Asoken Vs. State of Kerala

P.Asoken vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 31, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096347

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

P.Asoken

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....oblige the applicant to be posted anywhere in the state as his unit of appointment is the state taken as a whole. the requirement of the students projected by the applicant was not appealing to the government, which is first responsible to take care of the interests of the students. on a fair and due application of mind the government having concluded on that issue, the tribunal was well advised to keep its hands off on such a plea. tribunal also found no ground of illegality or mala fides being projected in accordance with law.3. we have also gone through the copy of the original application filed before the tribunal, placed along with the original petition. we find no sustainable ground to interfere with the order of transfer. to cap it all is the fact that the applicant had been in iti, kannur for the last more than thirteen years and his moving out of kannur cannot be treated as detrimental to the interest of the establishment, o. p. (kat) no.3804 of 2013 -3- since in kannur, there are other persons who are also trained in mechanic mechatronics, available to teach the students in iti, kannur. we find no ground to visit the decision of the tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india. in the result, this original petition fails and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine. sd/- thottathil b. radhakrishnan judge sd/- babu mathew p. joseph judge kns/- //true copy// p.a. to judge o. p. (kat) no.3804 of 2013 -4-

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE31T DAY OF OCTOBER20139TH KARTHIKA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 3804 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN OA22312013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -------- PETITIONER: -------------- P.ASOKEN, S/O GOPALAN, AGED47YEARS, SENIOR INSTRUCTOR MECHANIC MECHATRONICS, ITI, KANNUR - 670 007, R/A NARAYANA NAGAR, VADEKARA, KOZHIKODE - 673101. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. LABOUR AND RAHABILITATION DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPT., THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

3. JOINT DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPT, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.

4. PRINCIPAL, ITI KANNUR, THOTTADA, KANNUR DIST. - 670 007.

5. SURENDRAN P.V., FOUNDRY MAN, ITI MALAMPUZHA - 678 651 PALAKKAD DIST. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.JOSEPH THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3110-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 3804 of 2013 (Z) APPPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

IN OA NO.2231/2013 DATED0410/13 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, (OA NO.2231/2013) FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURES. ........... THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

------------------------------------------------ O. P. (KAT) No.3804 of 2013 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of October, 2013 JUDGMENT

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso. Under challenge is the order of Kerala Administrative Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order of transfer by which the applicant, Senior Instructor in Foundry Man Trade, is transferred from ITI, Kannur to ITI, Malampuzha. He projected the plea that he has been given training in Mechanic Mechatronics trade and that it is his competence that contributes to the proper instruction being imparted to the students of ITI, Kannur. The Tribunal had, in an earlier round, stayed the transfer requiring the Government to consider the views of the applicant as well. Thereafter, the Government considered the representation of the applicant and heard his counsel and had given its final O. P. (KAT) No.3804 of 2013 -2- decision that the applicant had to go to ITI, Malampuzha.

2. As rightly noted by the learned Tribunal, the provisions of Rule 32 of Part II of K.S.&S.S.R oblige the applicant to be posted anywhere in the State as his unit of appointment is the State taken as a whole. The requirement of the students projected by the applicant was not appealing to the Government, which is first responsible to take care of the interests of the students. On a fair and due application of mind the Government having concluded on that issue, the Tribunal was well advised to keep its hands off on such a plea. Tribunal also found no ground of illegality or mala fides being projected in accordance with law.

3. We have also gone through the copy of the original application filed before the Tribunal, placed along with the original petition. We find no sustainable ground to interfere with the order of transfer. To cap it all is the fact that the applicant had been in ITI, Kannur for the last more than thirteen years and his moving out of Kannur cannot be treated as detrimental to the interest of the establishment, O. P. (KAT) No.3804 of 2013 -3- since in Kannur, there are other persons who are also trained in Mechanic Mechatronics, available to teach the students in ITI, Kannur. We find no ground to visit the decision of the Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE O. P. (KAT) No.3804 of 2013 -4-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial