V. Sivan vs The State Of Kerala on 8 April, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19028 of 2005(M)


1. V. SIVAN, S/O. P.VELUKUTTY NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,

5. THE MANAGER,

6. THE HEADMASTER,

7. SMT. A.JAYALAKSHMI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :08/04/2008

 O R D E R
                             S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      W. P (C) No. 19028 of 2005
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                    Dated this, the 8th April, 2008.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext. P12 order whereby the 7th

respondent was granted seniority above the petitioner. The

contention of the petitioner is that the said order was passed on the

ground that the petitioner was not able to produce Government Order

dated 1-11-1989 granting the petitioner notional retrospective

promotion with effect from 15-7-1986, although the 7th respondent

was promoted only on 22-9-1986. The petitioner has now, along with

I.A.No. 7671/2007, produced Ext. P20, which he claims is the order

referred to in Ext. P12. In the above circumstances, the petitioner

seeks a direction to the Government to re-consider the matter in the

light of Ext. P20 order.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Learned

Government Pleader submits that all along the petitioner was not able

to produce a copy of Ext. P20 order and that copy of the alleged Ext.

P20 order was absent in all subordinate offices which was also not

pasted in the service book of the petitioner. Therefore, according to

the petitioner, the genuineness of Ext. P20 is suspect. It is up to the

Government to decide the genuineness of Ext. P20 and it would not be

difficult to ascertain at least whether such an order was issued with

the number assigned to the order.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ

petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to re-consider the

matter. The petitioner may produce Ext. P20 before the Government

and it would be open to the Government to consider the genuineness

of the same. Fresh orders shall be passed within two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/