High Court Kerala High Court

Prasanna Kumar K.P. vs K.Premarajan on 31 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Prasanna Kumar K.P. vs K.Premarajan on 31 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 1028 of 2010(S)


1. PRASANNA KUMAR K.P., AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.PREMARAJAN, AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN,SC,MALABAR DEVASWOM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :31/01/2011

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                        -------------------------
                     Cont.Case 1028 of 2010
                       --------------------------
                Dated this the 31st January, 2011

                          J U D G M E N T

Complaining of non-compliance with the directions in

Annexure-I judgment, this petition has been filed. In

Annexure-I judgment, this Court directed that the

respondents therein will assess the available vacancies of

Executive Officer-Gr.V and decide as to how many

vacancies are to be filled up and on that basis, will initiate

steps for filling up of those vacancies. It is alleging that

quantification of the vacancies in existence have not been

done so far, this petition has been filed. However, the

definite stand taken by the respondent in the statement

filed is that as at present there are no vacancies in the

category of Executive Officer Gr.V to be filled up by

promotion.

2. Although the petitioner has disputed this

assertion, respondent has again reiterated its stand in its

additional statement where reference is also made to

Annexures R1 (a) to R1 (k).

Cont.Case No. 1028 of 2010
2

3. In the light of this stand taken by the

respondent and the materials available, this Court is not in

a position to conclude the issue in favour of the petitioner

and therefore further proceedings in this petition will not

be justified. Therefore, the contempt petition has to be

closed and I do so.

4. Be that as it may, it is clarified that if according

to the petitioner, there are vacancies in existence, to be

filled up by promotion it will be open to the petitioner to

bring it to the notice of the respondent in which event,

respondent will deal with that claim and pass appropriate

orders in the matter.

Contempt Petition is closed as above.

Sd/-

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.A to Judge