N.V.Padmakumar Vs. Director,diary Development Department

N.V.Padmakumar vs Director,diary Development Department

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 24, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096523

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1096523
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Decided On: Oct 24, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.V.Padmakumar

Respondent

Director,diary Development Department

Excerpt

.....jj..................................................................... op(kat) no.3357 of 2013 .................................................................... dated this the 24th day of october, 2013. judgmentthottathil b.radhakrishnan, j.petitioner, who was working at kottayam, stands transferred to palakkad. he challenged that before the kerala administrative tribunal. the tribunal has focussed attention on different aspects of the matter urged before it. the fact that he was visited with an earlier round of proceedings for alleged indiscipline, which culminated in his being warned, is not in dispute. but, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has placed certain materials here trying to show that he was not liable to be transferred out of kottayam and there could have been no allegation against him and the entire exercise is mere victimisation relatable to the government's interference requiring the superior officers to ensure that the petitioner gets his due seniority, promotion, etc. we are not prepared to look into further materials in this proceedings under article 227 of the constitution of india, when no such material or plea was placed for consideration of the tribunal. we op(kat)3357/13 -2- are also clear in our mind that the findings of the tribunal in the impugned order would not stand in the way of the petitioner prosecuting any remedy before the superior authorities in the establishment or the controlling authority, namely the government. under such circumstances, we close this original petition leaving the petitioner with liberty to pursue remedies before the government, if need be. this original petition is ordered accordingly. (thottathil b.radhakrishnan, judge) (babu mathew p. joseph, judge) jg/24/x

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, THE24H DAY OF OCTOBER20132ND KARTHIKA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 3357 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN OA20312013 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ----------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN OA: ------------------------------------------------- N.V.PADMAKUMAR, NELLIPALLIL, KUDAVECHOOR, VAIKOM NOW WORKING AS LAB TECHNICIAN IN THE OFFICE OF THE QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686002. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN OA: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT , PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686002.

4. THE QUALITY CONTROL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686002. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2410-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PJ OP(KAT).No. 3357 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1. TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM IN O.A. 2031/2013 BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. IN O.A. 2031/2013. P3. A COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE PERIOD OF TENURE OF EMPLOYEES WORKING IN KOTTAYAM DIARY COMPLEX. P4. A COMPARATIVE CHART OF THE PERIOD OF TENURE OF LAB TECHNICIANS WORKING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF DIARY DEVELOPMENT. P5. TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

DATED2210-2012 BEARING NO. 36854/D1/2010/AD. P6. TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER

DATED84-2013 BEARING NO. 36819/D1/2012/AD. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.

.................................................................... OP(KAT) No.3357 of 2013 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of October, 2013.

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

Petitioner, who was working at Kottayam, stands transferred to Palakkad. He challenged that before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has focussed attention on different aspects of the matter urged before it. The fact that he was visited with an earlier round of proceedings for alleged indiscipline, which culminated in his being warned, is not in dispute. But, the fact of the matter remains that the petitioner has placed certain materials here trying to show that he was not liable to be transferred out of Kottayam and there could have been no allegation against him and the entire exercise is mere victimisation relatable to the Government's interference requiring the superior officers to ensure that the petitioner gets his due seniority, promotion, etc. We are not prepared to look into further materials in this proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, when no such material or plea was placed for consideration of the Tribunal. We OP(KAT)3357/13 -2- are also clear in our mind that the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order would not stand in the way of the petitioner prosecuting any remedy before the superior authorities in the establishment or the controlling authority, namely the Government. Under such circumstances, we close this original petition leaving the petitioner with liberty to pursue remedies before the Government, if need be. This original petition is ordered accordingly. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg/24/x

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties N.V.Padmakumar vs Director,diary Development Department Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan