Sunitha.K.E. vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Dec 22, 2022

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1515521

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/1515521
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Decided On: Dec 22, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/12317/2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunitha.K.E.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....this the 22nd day of december, 2022judgmentthe above writ petition is filed with following prayers :“(a) declare that the proviso to rule 9(1) of the kerala judicial service rules in so far it mandates service in any of the categories specified in rule 5(3) for a minimum period of 2 years after the acquisition of the qualification in law is violative of article 14 and 16 of the constitution of india. b) in the alternative read down the condition in proviso to rule 9(1) which specifies minimum period of 2 years after the acquisition of the qualification in law for being considered to the post of munsiff-magistrate under rule 9 as the same is discriminatory c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside exhibit p2 and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh.(d) be further pleased to issue such other writ order or direction as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]2. the counsel for the petitioner submitted that evenwp(c) no. 12317 of 2012 3 though the counsel tried to contact the petitioner, he did not get any response. in the light of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. sd/- p.v.kunhikrishnan judge sks

Full Judgment

WP(C) NO. 12317 OF 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 12317 OF 2012 PETITIONER/S: SUNITHA.K.E. AGED 42 YEARS LEGAL ASSISTANT GR.11, LAW DEPARTMENT, NOW ON DEPUTATION AS CLERK, ADR CENTRE, ERNAKULAM SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, 2 LAW SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, LAW (ADMINISTRATION 1) DEPARTMENT, 3 HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, 682 031. 4 THE DISTRICT CO-ORDINATOR (DISTRICT JUDGE ) (DELETED) DISTRICT MEDICATION CENTRE, DISTRICT COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 011. R4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2012 IN IA 7548/2012 IN WP(C) 12317/2012. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.RENJITH.T.R SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12317 OF 2012 2 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 12317 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

“(a) Declare that the proviso to Rule 9(1) of the Kerala Judicial Service Rules in so far it mandates service in any of the categories specified in Rule 5(3) for a minimum period of 2 years after the acquisition of the qualification in law is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. B) In the alternative read down the condition in proviso to Rule 9(1) which specifies minimum period of 2 years after the acquisition of the qualification in law for being considered to the post of Munsiff-Magistrate under Rule 9 as the same is discriminatory C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P2 and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner afresh.

(D) Be further pleased to issue such other writ order or direction as are warranted on the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even

WP(C) NO. 12317 OF 2012 3 though the counsel tried to contact the petitioner, he did not get any response. In the light of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2022 Same Parties Sunitha.K.E. vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan