IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37296 of 2008(M)
1. JAMES.N.CHACKO, NALLEPARAMBIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BRANCH MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD., OYOOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.BABU (VETTAKALAYIL)
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.JOHN MATHEW (RETD.JUDGE)
SHRI S.VENKATASUBRAMONIA IYER(SR. ADVOCATE)
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.JOHN MATHEW
(RETD. JUDGE)
AND
SRI.P.G.THAMPI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) NO.37296 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2010
A W A R D
Learned counsel for the petitioner Adv. Mr.Biju stated that
the matter has been settled and the payment have been effected
and execution proceedings are also closed and that the Writ
Petition has become infructuous, Writ Petition closed.
K.JOHN MATHEW
(RETD. JUDGE)
P.G.THAMPI
(SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ss/.
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+WP(C).No. 30846 of 2009(A)
#1. P.M.SHARAF MUHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (OPERATIONS) &
3. M.M.THOMAS, CHIEF TRANSPORT
! For Petitioner :SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
^ For Respondent :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
% Dated :25/02/2010
: O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
—————————————————————–
W.P.(C) Nos.30846/09, 37306/09, 115/2010
& 5716/2010
—————————————————————-
Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In 2003, KSRTC regulations were amended providing that 15%
of the posts in the category of Assistant Transport Officer and
Administrative Officer will be filled up from among the qualified
employees of the KSRTC. That regulation was under challenge
before this court in WP(c).No.12159/06 and connected cases. The
writ petitions were disposed of by judgment dated 7th August, 2009
holding that the appointments which were made in the meanwhile
were irregular for want of consultation with PSC as required in terms
of the provisions contained in the Kerala Public Service Commission
(Additional Functions as respects the KSRTC) Act 1970 and the Rules
framed there under. The petitioners in WP(c).Nos.30846/2009,
37306/2009 and 115/2010 are persons who are appointed in the
meanwhile to the post of Assistant Transport Officer. In the
judgment referred to above, after having found that the
appointments are invalid for want of consultation this court issued
the following directions.
WPC.Nos. 30846/09& conn.
:2 :
"Taking all the aforesaid into
consideration, it is orderedfactors
that the
Corporation will immediately take up
necessary follow up action to commence and
complete the consultation process with the
PSC. The State Government will also do the
needful and the PSC will ensure that such
proceedings are not held up having regard to
the fact that the regulations were conceived
some time in 2003. As of now, those who have
been given the benefit of the 2003 Regulations
would continue to enjoy the same provisionally
in terms of the orders of appointment issued
by the Managing Director in their cases and
any selection process could also be completed
as regards the 15% internal recruitment
candidates and even appointment orders and
any incumbent joining duty in any such posts,
would be provisional and subject to review by
the Managing Director on the basis of the final
outcome of the consultation process. These
writ petitions are ordered accordingly.”
2. Accordingly, the KSRTC took up the matter with the PSC
and the PSC has issued letter dated 16.12.2009, which is produced
as Ext.P9 in WP(c).No.5716/2010.
3. In so far as WP(c)Nos.30846/2010,37306/2010 and
115/2020 filed by the appointees are concerned, what they claim is
that since their appointment they are continuing in service, earned
promotions but however are now being overlooked in the matter of
WPC.Nos. 30846/09& conn.
:3 :
promotion to the post of Chief Transport Officer. On the other hand
in WP(c).No.5716/2010 filed by the Transport Democratic Front and
another, what they contend is that now that in pursuance to the
judgment of this court, the matter was taken up with the PSC and
since the PSC has clarified its position by its letter dated 16.12.2009
referred to above, the appointments are to be invalidated.
4. In the judgment in WP(c).No.12159/2006 and connected
cases referred to above, this court directed the KSRTC to initiate
consultation with the PSC in view of the provisions contained in
Section 3 of the Act referred to above. It is in response to that the
PSC has issued the letter dated 16.12.2009. Now that the matter is
pending before the KSRTC, it is for the KSRTC to consider the
response of the PSC and take a decision in the matter. Obviously, if
there is a conflict between the KSRTC and PSC, it is also open to the
KSRTC to take up the matter with the Government and seek
appropriate orders.
5. Therefore, at this stage what is required to be done is that
the KSRTC should finally decide on this matter duly taking into
account the views expressed by the PSC in its letter dated
WPC.Nos. 30846/09& conn.
:4 :
16.12.2009. This the KSRTC shall do as expeditiously as possible
and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a
copy of the judgment. Depending upon the final decision so taken,
and if the decision is in favour of the appointees, their claim for
promotion will also be considered by the KSRTC.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/