P.Sreedharan Pillai vs M.Viswanathan on 24 November, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1073 of 2007()


1. P.SREEDHARAN PILLAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.VISWANATHAN, S/O. LATE M.APPUNNY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. P.MOOSA, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS,

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

4. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/11/2008

 O R D E R
                            ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                           ==============
                            R.P.No.1073 of 2007
                                        IN
                      W.P.(C) NO. 19744 OF 2005 (A)
                     ====================

              Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008

                                   O R D E R

The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the review petitioner.

2. The writ petition was disposed of taking note of the grievance

of the writ petitioners that they were excluded from the DPC held for 2002

despite their eligibility, on the ground that there were adverse remarks in

their confidential records, which according to them were not

communicated to them. Taking note of this, it was ordered that the

confidential records should be communicated and they will be given an

opportunity to make their representations in the matter. It was also made

clear that if the adverse remarks are remedial in nature, the course

provided in Rule 28(b)(1)(4) of the KS & SSR will also be adopted.

3. The review petitioner submits that the assumption made in the

judgment that the adverse remarks were not communicated is erroneous

and he is relying on Annexure 2 communication obtained by him from the

State Public Information Officer on 27/9/07 suggesting that in so far as the

first petitioner in the writ petition is concerned, he was communicated the

confidential records for the year 1998-2000. It is also stated that in so far

RP 1073/07
:2 :

as second writ petitioner is concerned, he was communicated the

confidential records for 1998-99. On this basis, it is contended that there

are factual errors and hence review is sought for.

4. On the other hand, the writ petitioners argue for the position

that the confidential records were not in fact communicated and that even

the signature that is seen in the documents are forged. They have other

complaints also about the confidential records that are maintained.

Counsel also placed reliance on Ext.P3 issued by the Director of Ports on

20/11/2003 to the Secretary to Government reporting about the improper

maintenance of the confidential records.

5. Evidently, therefore, the factual controversies relate to the

maintenance of the confidential records, signatures that are obtained and

there are also other complaints about confidential records. Now that in

the judgment, it has been directed that once the process of

communication and rectification, if any, is completed, the matter will be

placed before the DPC and since the DPC is yet to meet, I feel it

appropriate that at the time when the DPC takes up the matter for

consideration as directed in the judgment, the controversies raised by the

parties in this review petition should also be considered, with notice to the

RP 1073/07
:3 :

parties hereto.

6. Therefore, I direct that the review petitioner shall produce a

copy of this order before the Convenor of the DPC, who shall take

necessary steps as directed above.

Review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp