Loading...

G.Muraleedharan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2006

Kerala High Court
G.Muraleedharan Nair vs The State Of Kerala on 3 July, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 4922 of 2001(J)



1. G.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

 Dated :03/07/2006

 O R D E R
                                  K.THANKAPPAN, J.
                               ------------------------------------
                                  O.P.NO. 4922 OF 2001
                               ------------------------------------


                           Dated this the 3rd  day of July,  2006


                                        JUDGMENT

The petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 order by which his request for

promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector against the vacancies that arose in the

erstwhile Eastern Range and Ernakulam Range was rejected. The petitioner also

challenges Exts.P5 and P6 promotion lists of Head Constables as Assistant Sub

Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors as Sub Inspectors respectively.

2. The petitioner was initially recruited as Police Constable and posted at

the Local Police Station in Alappuzha District with effect from 5.4.1973 and on

the basis of seniority, he was promoted as Head Constable with effect from

30.3.1991. Before 1993, the police administrative set up comprised of three

ranges, namely Southern Range, Central Range and Northern Range. Districts of

Thiruvananthapuram , Kollam, Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha came under

Southern Range, Ernakulam, Kottayam, Idukki and Thrissur Districts came

under Central Range and Northern Range comprised of Palakkad, Malappuram,

Kozhikode, Wynad, Kannur and Kasaragod Districts. On re-organisation of the

O.P.NO.4922/2001 2

ranges, a new range, namely, Eastern Range was formed on 5.8.1993 comprising

of Kottayam and Idukki Districts of Central Range and Alappuzha District of

Southern Range. At the time of re-organisation of the ranges, all the Head

Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors working in the respective Districts

were allowed to exercise option either to remain in the old range or to come over

to the new range. The petitioner opted to remain in the Southern Range. On the

basis of the options, seniority list of Head Constables who opted Eastern Range

was finalised in which the name of the petitioner was not included as he had

opted to remain in the Southern Ranges. Later, on 1.10.1997 the Police Ranges

were again re-organised as Thiruvananthapuram Range, Ernakulam Range ,

Thrissur Range and Kannur Range. Alappuzha District was included in

Ernakulam Range and the erstwhile Southern Range became

Thiruvananthapuram Range. Range was taken as the unit for the purpose of

promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector and State was taken as the unit

for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector.

3. The petitioner had opted to continue in the Southern Range which was

re-organised as Thirivananthapuram Range and hence he was superseded by his

juniors in Ernakulam Range while promotion was effected to the post of

O.P.NO.4922/2001 3

Assistant Sub Inspectors. In the counter affidavit filed for and on behalf of the

first respondent, it is stated that since the petitioner’s option to continue in

Southern Range was accepted, his name was not included in the Range seniority

list of Head Constables who had opted to go over to Eastern Range. The

petitioner joined as Police Constable in Alappuzha District and it was then that

Alappuzha District was included in the Eastern Range. After re-organisation,

Alappuzha District was included in Ernakulam Range. Hence, it is only proper

for the authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. In the above

circumstances, Ext.P9 is quashed and the second respondent is directed to

consider Ext.P8 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, after

affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a reasonable time,

at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. Though the petitioner has challenged Exts.P5 and P6, this Court is not

inclined to quash the same at this distance of time. But, it is made clear that the

above lists will be subject to the final decision taken in Ext.P8 representation.

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

O.P.NO.4922/2001 4

sp/

O.P.NO.4922/2001 5

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

O.P.NO.4922/2001

JUDGMENT

3RD JULY, 2006

O.P.NO.4922/2001 6

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information