IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31758 of 2008(E)
1. M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 31758 OF 2008 (E)
====================
Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
By Ext.P1, petitioner was appointed as an LDC in the Government
Technical High School, Pampady. Subsequently under Rule 9 (a) (I) of the
General Rules in KS & SSR, petitioner was appointed as an Instructor in
Maintenance and Repairs of two wheelers and three wheelers. While so, by
Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent has ordered the 3rd respondent to relieve the
petitioner and allow the 4th respondent to join the post. Thereupon, the
petitioner has filed Ext.P7, seeking an order from the 2nd respondent in
order to enable him to continue as Vocational Instructor.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P6 is a laconic
order in as much as it does not contain any reasons requiring his release
from the post. I am not able to agree with the counsel. A reading of
Ext.P6 shows that what is sought for is replacement of employees like the
petitioner who are appointed on Rule 9 (a) (I) of KS & SSR. It also shows
that regular appointees are now reporting for duty and it is only thereupon
that the petitioner is sought to be replaced. No objection can be taken to
Ext.P6.
WPC 31758/08
:2 :
3. Be that as it may, if Ext.P7 has been received, it is for the 2nd
respondent to consider the same.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp