High Court Kerala High Court

Shakeela Ashraf vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 13 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Shakeela Ashraf vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its on 13 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2588 of 2007()


1. SHAKEELA ASHRAF, AGED 38 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :13/01/2009

 O R D E R
     KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
              ----------------------------------------------
                     W.A. No.2588 of 2007
              ----------------------------------------------
                  Dated 13th January, 2009.

                          J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

Appellant/petitioner is aggrieved since the writ petition

filed by her for a writ of mandamus for appointment under the

dying-in-harness scheme has been dismissed with an observation

that she has to wait in the queue, and her case can be considered

for appointment as and when her turn arises as per the scheme.

According to the petitioner, it is more than five years since the

petitioner made the application. But as rightly pointed out by the

learned Government Pleader, she is only one among the several

applicants waiting for appointment as per the scheme. As held

by the Supreme Court in Sivamurthy v. State of Andhra

Pradesh (2008(3) KLT 911(SC), the State is entitled to frame a

scheme. It has also been held in the above decision by the apex

court that compassionate appointment being an exception to the

general rule of appointment, the same can be claimed strictly in

WA NO.2588/07 2

accordance with the terms of the scheme and not by seeking any

relaxation. Thus there is no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly

dismissed.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH &

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ

———————————————-

W.A. No.2588 of 2007

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 13th January, 2009.