High Court Kerala High Court

B.Balakrishnan vs Secretary To Government on 5 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
B.Balakrishnan vs Secretary To Government on 5 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6043 of 2010(E)


1. B.BALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/03/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.6043 OF 2010 (E)
              --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is working as LDC in Kanhangad Municipality.

Petitioner submits that he is 60% blind and he seeks exemption

from passing departmental test for promotion to higher posts.

According to the petitioner in similar cases Government have

exempted persons from acquiring test qualification and he relies on

Exts.P1 and P2 orders. Seeking similar benefits it is stated that he

made Ext.P3 representation to the Government and that by Ext.P4

he has been informed that the matter is engaging attention of the

Government. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the

matter and that as a result of which he is stagnating in the category

of L.D. Clerk. In these circumstances this writ petition is filed

praying for a direction to the respondents to exempt the petitioner

from acquiring test qualification for the purpose of promotion.

2. What is sought for by the petitioner is exemption from the

general rules which require that a person should acquire test

qualification to become eligible for promotion. Power to give

WPC.No. 6043/2010
:2 :

exemption is a power vested in Government and this is what has

been invoked by the petitioner by filing Ext.P3. In Ext.P4 reply

since he has been informed that the matter is engaging the

attention of the Government, it is evident that the Government is

yet to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner.

Therefore, at this stage what is warranted is that the Government

should expedite its decision on Ext.P3.

3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the first

respondent to expedite decision on Ext.P3 representation made by

he petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at

any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of

this judgment along wit a copy of this writ petition.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a

copy of this writ petition before the first respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No. 6043/2010
:3 :