High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.Mathew Benedict K.A. vs The Secretary To Government on 12 July, 2007

Kerala High Court
Sri.Mathew Benedict K.A. vs The Secretary To Government on 12 July, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 3016 of 2002(H)


1. SRI.MATHEW BENEDICT K.A.,PROFESSOR,MAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SRI.K.U.ABRAHAM,PROFESSOR,MACE,
3. SRI.RAMAN NAMPOOTHIRY N.,PROFESSOR,
4. SRI.JOSEPHKUNJU PAUL.C.,ASST.PROFESSOR,
5. SRI.ROY N.MATHEWS,ASST.PROFESSOR,
6. SRI.M.A.ABRAHAM,ASST.PROFESSOR,
7. SRI.REJI MATHEW,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,
8. SRI.DEVI PRASAD VARMA P.R.,
9. SRI.BINU C.YOLDOSE,ASST.PROFESSOR,
10. SRI.KEMTHOSE P.PAUL,ASST.PROFESSOR,
11. DR.C.J.JOSEPH,PROFESOR,MACE,
12. SRI.M.M.PAULOSE,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,
13. SMT.B.GEETHA,ASST.PROFESOR,MACE,
14. SRI.PAUL ANTONY,PROFESOR,MACE,
15. SRI.M.L.PAUL,PROFESSOR,MACE,
16. SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,
17. SMT.SALICE PETER,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,
18. SMT.SHEELA JOSEPH,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,
19. SMT.ELIZABETH SEBASTIAN,ASST.PROFESSOR,
20. SRI.RAJAN.P.THOMAS,ASST.PROFESSOR,
21. SMT.ALICEKUTTY PHILIP,PROFESSOR,MACE,
22. SRI.PAULSON JOHN,ASST.PROFESOR,MACE,
23. SMT.LEENA THOMAS,ASST.PROFESSOR,MACE,

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HIGHER
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL

4. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,KOTTAYAM,

5. M.A.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.K.MUHAMMAD YOUSUF, SC, M.G.UTY.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :12/07/2007

 O R D E R
            THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                        O.P.No.3016 OF 2002
                  -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007


                              JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek to quash Ext.P25. They also seek a

declaration as to the validity of their promotions in question.

2. Admittedly, promotions of the petitioners have been made

in terms of Ext.P1 and such promotions have been approved by

the University. The plea in the counter affidavit that such

promotions were given with retrospective effect, without prior

concurrence of the Government, does not stand. The writ

petition hence succeeds.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned

Ext.P25 is quashed and it is directed that all consequential

benefits flowing out of the approval of the promotions of the

petitioners shall be made available to them in accordance with

law, in terms of the approval orders issued by the University.

Sd/-

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.

=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.3016 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

12TH JULY, 2007.

=======================