High Court Kerala High Court

R.Vijayakumari vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
R.Vijayakumari vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26024 of 2010(C)


1. R.VIJAYAKUMARI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :02/09/2010

 O R D E R
                           S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                  ==================

                    W.P.(C).No. 26024 of 2010

                  ==================

            Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is presently working as a Senior Grade

Opthalmic Assistant, which according to the petitioner is

interchangeable with posts of Refractionists, Orthoptists and

Opthalmic Assistants which are feeder posts for promotion as

Tutor Technicians. The petitioner would contend that the

petitioner therefore is entitled to be promoted to the post of Tutor

Technicians. The Government has decided to start B.Sc.

Optometric course for conducting which course, three posts of

Tutor Technicians have been created. Petitioner seeks

promotion of one of those posts. The petitioner’s grievance is

that instead of promoting the petitioner, the 2nd respondent is

taking steps to appoint persons from outside. Petitioner has

therefore filed Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent.

Petitioner presently seeks direction to the 2nd respondent to

consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously.

The learned Government Pleader submits that the

petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion in the

post of Tutor Technician now created, in so far as the petitioner is

W.P.(C).No. 26024 of 2010 2

working in the department of Health Services, whereas the

present post have been created in the Medical Education

Department which are distinctive and separate department.

Therefore, he submits that the petitioner cannot aspire for

promotion to the post of Tutor Technician in Medical Education

Service.

I am not inclined to go into the rival contentions on merits,

in so far as Ext.P4 representation is pending in this regard and it

is for the 1st respondent to consider the matter in the first

instance in accordance with law. Accordingly without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the claim, I dispose of this writ

petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass

orders on Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within

two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

mns