High Court Kerala High Court

Anitha Thomas vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 18 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
Anitha Thomas vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 18 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33822 of 2008(B)


1. ANITHA THOMAS, PHARMACIST (DEPARTMENT
                      ...  Petitioner
2. GEETHAP. NAIR, PHARMACIST (DEPARTMENT

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/11/2008

 O R D E R
                           ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                           ==============
                    W.P.(C) NO. 33822 OF 2008 (B)
                    ====================

              Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Petitioners submit that they are Pharmacists in the Medical

Education Department and the 1st petitioner is presently working at T.D.

Medical College, Alleppey and the second petitioner is now working in the

Medical College, Kottayam. According to them, by Ext.P12, post of

Pharmacists has been included in the teaching staff category and by

Ext.P13, the Government have already upgraded some of the posts of

Pharmacists as that of Tutor, which post has since been redesignated as

Lecturer. It is stated that the petitioners have made similar requests and

the Head of the Department by Ext.P15 recommended upgradation of

Pharmacists into Lecturer.

2. It is stated that though request of the petitioners for

upgradation as Lecturer is pending consideration of the Government, so

far a final decision in this matter has not been taken, as a result of which,

for want of promotional avenues, petitioners are stagnating in the post of

Pharmacists. It is stated that expecting favourable orders, they have

moved the 1st respondent by filing Exts. P19 and P21 representations and

that even to these representations, response has not been received so far.

WPC 33822/08
:2 :

It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

3. Though substantial prayers have been made by the

petitioners, it is noticed that the representations made by the petitioners

as Ext.P19 and P21 are pending consideration of the 1st respondent. As

already noticed, petitioners are making reference to Ext.P13, an order

upgrading the post of Pharmacists as Tutor, Ext.P15, where the Head of

the Department has recommended upgradation of the post as Lecturer

and also Ext.P18 where the 2nd respondent has addressed the 1st

respondent that upgradation can be ordered.

4. Now that these matters are pending consideration of the

Government, it is only appropriate that the 1st respondent takes a final

decision in this matter, especially it being a policy matter.

5. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall consider and

pass orders on Exts. P19 and P21, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

within 3 months of production a copy of this judgment. Petitioners shall

produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition

before the 1st respondent for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp