High Court Kerala High Court

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai vs Rajesh Kumar Singh(Age And … on 8 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai vs Rajesh Kumar Singh(Age And … on 8 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Con.Case(C).No. 39 of 2011(S)


1. T.G.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.O.PAUL, AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.OUSEPH,
3. M.G.BABU, AGED 53 YEARS,
4. M.RENUKUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH(AGE AND FATHERS NAME
                       ...       Respondent

2. A.SHAJAHAN (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :08/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
         -----------------------------------------------------------
          COC.No.39 OF 2011 & IA.No.16715/2010
                      in WP(c).No.20169/2010
         -----------------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011

                           J U D G M E N T

WP(c).No.20169/2010 was disposed of by judgment dated

16th July, 2010 directing that the claim of the petitioners for

declaration of their probation as Junior Lecturer (Agriculture) shall

be considered by the Government.

2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance

with the aforesaid directions. Meanwhile the respondents in the

Writ petition filed I.A.No.16715/2010 in WP(c).No.20169/2010 for

extension of time.

3. While the matter is pending, Government have passed

order dated 14.1.2011 dealing with the claim of the petitioners for

declaration of their probation and their claim has been rejected.

4. Though the counsel for the petitioners contended that

this order is contrary to the directions in the judgment, I am

unable to agree with this contention. This is for the reason that by

the judgment, this court only directed that the claim of the

petitioners for declaration of their probation shall be considered

and orders thereon shall be passed. If for any reason, the order is

COC.No.39/2011 & I.A.NO.16715/2010
:2 :

illegal, it is for the petitioners to challenge the said order and seek

appropriate reliefs. No case of contempt has been made out.

Contempt is closed.

5. Now that the order has been passed, no further orders

are necessary in I.A.No.16715/2010 filed for extension of time.

It is made clear that it will be open to the petitioners to seek

their remedies against the order dated 14.1.2011.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/