Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

The Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Vs. Sobhana Sivadasan W/O. Sivad ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. The first respondent was engaged from 28.5.2001 as a part time casual labourer continuously and later, was engaged to work as a GDS Mail Deliverer in an existing vacancy at Kiralur Branch Post Office under Velur Sub Post Office with effect from 7.11.2005 on a temporary basis with an artificial break of service. Ultimately, noticing a provision for preferential treatment to full time casual labourers in respect of appointment to GD post provided they fulfill certain conditions, the respondent moved the CAT seeking the following reliefs:(i) to declare that applicant is eligible and entitled to be considered for appointment in the existing vacancy of GDS Mail Deliverer at Kiralur Branch Post Officer or any other GDS vacancy in terms of Annexure A-3.(ii) to issue appropriate directions/orders to the respondents to consider applicant's claim for appointment ...

Kambantavida Abdul Sathar Vs. the Special Tahsildar and the Managing D ...

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. As early as on 04/09/1997 Section 4(1) notification was issued under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the property belonging to the petitioner. The land was taken possession as early as on 06/07/2000. It is stated that by the aforesaid process of acquisition, 31.20 ares of garden land and 335.85 ares of kaipad land were acquired and total amount of Rs. 21,38,156/- was awarded as compensation.2. Reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, where the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs. 7,51,80,000/-, and judgment was rendered giving enhancement. An appeal was filed against the same as LAA No. 462/2007. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment following an earlier judgment in LAA No. 1089/2007, and the matter was remanded for denovo consideration.3. When the matter was thus pending, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of experts suggested therein, and seven matters wer...

The Kerala Public Service Commission and the District Officer Vs. Kris ...

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This appeal is by the Kerala Public Service Commission and its District Officer.2. The first respondent filed the writ petition claiming that he is entitled to be appointed as driver in the service of the second respondent District Co-operative Bank on the premise that on account of the occurrence of a vacancy in the cadre of drivers, the bank was bound to report such vacancy and the PSC was bound to advise accordingly.3. At the stage of admission of the writ petition, an interim order was issued directing the bank to report four vacancies. That was done. Obviously, that was to get over any possible situation where available vacancy is not reported during the currency of a list.4. However, at final hearing, it is clearly noted on the basis of the pleadings on record that there was no room for any appointment from the list that was in force at the time the writ petition was filed. However, after dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge dir...

The Neeloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. the State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. These writ appeals are filed by a co-operative bank, hereinafter referred to as the 'bank'. The writ petition is filed by one of its erstwhile employees, hereinafter, the 'employee', for short.2. Going by the entire materials on record and after hearing learned Counsel for the bank as also the employee, it needs to be stated at the out set that the employee had a fairly unblemished career until disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on a count that he had been unauthorisedly absent for a period of two months without making any application for leave. He was the Accountant in the bank. The disciplinary proceedings led to an enquiry, consequential findings by the sub committee and ultimately, decision by the employer bank to dismiss the petitioner from service. The employee challenged that before the officer exercising the powers of the Registrar invoking Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. That application was allowed. The b...

A.P. Vareed, S/O. Poulose A.V. Vs. the Kerala State Road Transport and

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner, who is an Inspector working under the 1st respondent, is aspiring promotion to the post of ATO. His claim for promotion was overlooked on account of certain punishments imposed on him based on disciplinary actions. Finally, pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, his claim was considered by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation and rejected by Ext.P10. It is challenging Ext.P10, this writ petition has been filed.2. Ext.P10, in so far as it is relevant, reads thus:The name of the petitioner has been considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 22/05/2008 for inclusion in the Select List for promotion to the cadre of ATO. Two disciplinary cases were pending against him at the time of consideration of his name by the DPC. Moreover, he has been awarded a punishment of increment bar for one year temporarily as per Order No. 24677/2005 dated 11/06/2007 for performing duty under intoxication on 25/08/2005.Another disciplinary case pending ...

Maya S., W/O. Sudheer Vs. State of Kerala and ors.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT99

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The writ petition was referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge, noticing the apparent conflict between two reported decisions of the Single Benches concerning the rights of an existing claimant under Rule 51A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER) to the vacancies that arose after the amendment to the said Rule introduced on 17/06/2005. The brief facts of the case are the following.2. The petitioner was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant (UPSA) in Mattakkara High School by its Manager on 29/06/2005 as per Ext.P1 order. The said appointment was in a regular vacancy and it was approved by the District Education Officer (DEO) as per order dated 13/01/2006. During the academic year 2006-2007, one post of High School Assistant(Maths) was abolished and a new post of Lower Grade Hindi Teacher was sanctioned. Ext.P2 is the staff fixation order for the year 2006-2007 dated 24/07/2006, which took effect from 15/07/2006. As a res...

K.M. Aisha, W/O. Late Ali Vs. the Kandannissery Grama Panchayat

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7.2. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the respondent Panchayat on an appeal filed by the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to produce consent issued by the Pollution Control Board for issuing licence pursuant to Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner.3. The petitioner is running a SSI unit. The Unit did not have licence issued by the Panchayat. She made Ext.P4 application. During the pendency of the application, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 stop memo requiring the petitioner to stop further work in the industrial unit for want of licence issued by it. That order was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to pursue appellate remedy before the Panchayat. Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal and Ext.P7 order was passed on the appeal.4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Panchayat has expressed its willingness to issue licence, on the production of consent order issued by t...

Smt. Gunasundari Vs. the Special Tahsildar,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with preserving their right to seek rehearing of this writ petition, if aggrieved. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.2. An item of land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioner, she is also entitled to a share following the law of succession and certain agreements held by her. She says that she is also a heir of the person to whom the land originally belonged and who is now no more. These are issues which could be considered only by a reference court in terms of the LA Act. Apparently, the claim made by the petitioner cannot be demonstrated with reference to any registered document. This situation appears to have weighed with the Collector under the Act to assume that she has no documentary evidence for the claim made by her. Under such circumstances, it is ordered that the petitioner's application, Ext.P4, will be taken up for consideration and if ...

Lissy Cletus Vs. Mahatma Gandhi University

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT928

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The petitioner seeks for a re-declaration of results and to award Second Class to her, as she has obtained 49.9% marks. According to the petitioner, this can be rounded off to 50%, so that she will get a Second Class.2. The petitioner was a private student for the course M.A. English conducted by the first respondent University for the academic year 2006-2008. Ext.P1 is the mark list showing that she has passed all the examinations. The petitioner obtained a total of 1094 of 2200 marks. She applied for a revaluation of 4 out of 21 papers.3. One of the papers to which revaluation sought is Politics of Narration. Her original marks were 32 which was enhanced to 40 on revaluation. In terms of the guidelines a secondary revaluation was done, wherein the marks were reduced to 30. On the basis of relevant guidelines viz. No. 16(c), the average marks was taken as 35 and the original marks were thus enhanced from 32 to 35. One third of the same will be added as int...

Mankuzhy Nagar Resident's Association Vs. District Collector,

Court: Kerala

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. This writ petition is filed by Mankuzhy Nagar Residents' Association essentially complaining that there is large scale encroachment of revenue land by different occupants of patta lands or even without any occupation of patta lands. The survey documents issued in relation to the area is sought to be redone.2. With this public interest litigation in hand, this Court issued an order requiring publication of notice of this writ petition in a newspaper. That was promptly done. Thereafter, following different directions, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur had placed a report and certain exhibits. Thereafter an application for enlargement of time was also filed to carry out the directions issued by this Court. Ultimately, the first respondent District Collector has filed an affidavit dated 3.11.2009 stating that the District Collector had appointed a special team with two surveyors, in 2004, for measuring the thodu puramboke and it took three months to complete the w...