High Court Kerala High Court

Rajalekshmy.L.S. vs The State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Rajalekshmy.L.S. vs The State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20756 of 2009(L)


1. RAJALEKSHMY.L.S., AGED 27 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE DIRECTOR,

4. THE SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :15/11/2010

 O R D E R
                  K.T.SANKARAN, J.
          ------------------------------
             W.P.(C).No.20756 OF 2009
          ------------------------------
     Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010




                     JUDGMENT

The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that

though he is included as the 4th rank holder in the

main list in the ranked list published on 31.7.2007

for appointment to the post of ECG Technician under

the Medical Education Department of the State

Government, he did not get appointment due to non

reporting of vacancies. The learned Government

Pleader submitted that as per the special rules,

the appointment of ECG technicians is by direct

recruitment as well as by promotion from qualified

junior lab assistants in the ratio 1:1. In the

additional statement dated 14th January, 2010, filed

on behalf of the third respondent, it is stated

that the total sanctioned strength of ECG

Technician in the Medical Education service is 39.

As such, admissible number of PSC recruited hands

would be 20. At present, 21 PSC recruited ECG

W.P.(C).No.20756 OF 2010 2

technicians are working in the Department.

Therefore, no substantive vacancy is liable to be

reported. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the vacancies are not filled up even

now and ad hoc appointments of ECG technicians are

being made. When the quota earmarked for direct

appointees is already filled up, the petitioner

could not be said to be an aggrieved person in the

matter of appointment of persons on ad hoc basis.

The persons aggrieved would be a persons who are

entitled to get promotion from the quota earmarked

for junior lab assistants. On that ground also,

the grievance voiced by the petitioner could not

be sustained. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ

Petition is dismissed.

K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE.

cms