High Court Kerala High Court

G.S.Sureshkumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 27 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
G.S.Sureshkumar vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 27 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2708 of 2011(K)


1. G.S.SURESHKUMAR,SURESH BHAVAN,KRA 136,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. A.SALIM, MULLAVANAM, THOLICODE,
3. V.P.ANILKUMAR, PADMACOTTAGE,BURMA ROAD,
4. S.S.SUNILKUMAR,SAROJA BHAVAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA  REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRAVANCORE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :27/01/2011

 O R D E R
                       S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                -----------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.2708 OF 2011
              ---------------------------------------
           Dated this the 27th day of January, 2011

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioners are aspirants for employment as Work

Assistant in the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., the second

respondent herein. They have undergone apprenticeship training

for that post in the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. itself,

pursuant to which the Government of India has issued National

Apprenticeship Certificates to the petitioners. According to them,

therefore, they are entitled to be absorbed in the Company.

Their grievance in this writ petition is that now the second

respondent has issued Ext.P10 notification inviting applications

for the said post, without considering the claim of the petitioners

to be appointed to the post recognising the apprenticeship

training undergone by them in the Company itself.

2. The learned Standing Counsel would point out that

there is no rule which enables the petitioners to seek automatic

absorption pursuant to the apprenticeship training and therefore,

W.P.(C)No.2708/11 2

they have to undergo the selection process as per the

Recruitment Rules applicable. The learned Standing Counsel

has also got a contention that the petitioners are over-aged.

According to the petitioners, in view of the Government

direction in this regard, the petitioners are entitled to

preference in such appointment. In the above circumstances,

the petitioners have filed Ext.P11 representation before the

first respondent. The petitioners seek a direction to the first

respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11

expeditiously.

Having heard the learned Government Pleader and the

learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, I dispose

of this writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P11, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to a representative of the

petitioners and to a representative of the second respondent

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(C)No.2708/11 3

W.P.(C)No.2708/11 4