High Court Kerala High Court

B.Gopinathan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
B.Gopinathan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 30 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16120 of 2008(R)


1. B.GOPINATHAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :30/05/2008

 O R D E R
                         V.GIRI, J
                       -------------------
                   W.P.(C).16120/2008
                       --------------------
            Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008

                       JUDGMENT

Petitioner, who is working as Deputy Director of

Education and Media Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, has

sought for a posting as Food Inspector which amounts to

a reversion to a lower post. This is provided under Rule

21(a) of Part-I of the KSR. Petitioner has been

constrained to resort to this request to enable him to take

care of his ailing wife and son, who are being treated in

the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram.

Petitioner points out that the request made by his junior

Sri.P.Unnikrishnan Nair, on account of personal problems

was accepted by the Government and the incumbent was

directed to be given a suitable posting. As per Ext.P7,

Unnikrishnan Nair was given a posting as Food Inspector

in the Kollengode Circle, Palakkad District. Petitioner has

filed several representations before the Government

seeking a similar direction and the latest one, Ext.P10, is

pending before the Government. Petitioner further

W.P.(C).16120/2008
2

submits that he has three years in service for

superannuation.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. Having perused the averments in the writ petition

as also Ext.P10 in the light of Ext.P6, I am of the view

that the petitioner’s request is liable to be considered

by the Government. If there is any factor which stands in

the way of the Government in accepting the petitioner’s

request, same must be specifically communicated to the

petitioner.

4. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing

the first respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P10 within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, in the light of Ext.P6

order. I make it clear that if there is any factor which

stands in the way of the Government accepting the

W.P.(C).16120/2008
3

petitioner’s request, it must be specifically indicated in

the order to be passed by the Government. I am sure

that the Government shall sympathetically consider the

case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as

indicated above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the

writ petition also, along with the copy of the judgment

before the first respondent.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs