High Court Kerala High Court

Ajith vs Central Tuber Crops Research … on 23 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ajith vs Central Tuber Crops Research … on 23 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 23161 of 2010(U)


1. AJITH, S/O.LATE K.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSNTITUTE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.SURESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :23/07/2010

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
               W.P.(C) NO. 23161 OF 2010 (U)
                =====================

             Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010

                        J U D G M E N T

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned

Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent.

2. Petitioner’s father was a Lab Assistant under the

respondent. He died in harness on 29/11/2002. Thereupon,

petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application for compassionate

appointment, the scheme of which is stated to be Ext.P3. Again

petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P2(a) reminders claiming the

benefit of Ext.P3 Scheme. Pursuant to the directions of this

Court as contained in Ext.P7 judgment, the claim has been

considered and is rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is Ext.P8 order,

which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. A reading of Ext.P8 order shows that all that is stated

is that respondent regrets to inform the petitioner that as per the

existing rules and guidelines of compassionate appointment, his

case cannot be considered. This order does not disclose any

reason why the claim was rejected, and therefore, the order

admittedly has been passed without adverting to relevant

WPC No. 23161/10
:2 :

considerations and the provisions of Ext.P3 scheme.

4. For the above reason, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the

respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of

the provisions contained in the scheme governing appointment

on compassionate grounds and fresh orders in the matter shall

be passed. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment

along with a copy of this writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp