High Court Kerala High Court

L.R.Muraly vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
L.R.Muraly vs State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16265 of 2009(C)



1. L.R.MURALY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/08/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
               --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.16265 OF 2009(C)
               --------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is presently working as Agricultural Officer.

According to him, he is liable to be promoted to the post of

Assistant Director of Agriculture. He submitted Ext.P5

representation requesting that he be posted as Assistant Director in

a Linquesting Minority Area. That representation was rejected by

Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent stating that there was

no vacancy in Palakkad District. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this writ

petition is filed.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there are 9

vacancies in the notified districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Idukki

and Palakkad districts. It is also his case that juniors to him are

occupying those posts. Counsel relying on the judgment in Baburaj

V. Govt. of Kerala (20005(2)KLT 451) and states that if he is

otherwise eligible, his claim shall not be overlooked.

3. If as stated by the petitioner there are 9 vacancies in the

three notified districts his claim for posting to one of those

WPC.No.16265 /09
:2 :

vacancies is liable to be considered, in the light of the judgment

referred to above. Therefore I am satisfied that the claim of the

petitioner needs to be reconsidered in the manner as stated

above.

4. Therefore I quash Ext.P6 and direct the first respondent to

consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner. Orders shall

be passed as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the

date of production of a copy of the judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/