High Court Kerala High Court

T.K.Abdul Latheef vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 8 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.K.Abdul Latheef vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 8 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12357 of 2010(T)


1. T.K.ABDUL LATHEEF,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.S.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :08/04/2010

 O R D E R
                      T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      W.P.(C) No. 12357 of 2010-T
                   - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010.

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the legal heir of late Shri T.K. Kunju Muhammed,

who was a licensee of ARD No.201 of Aluva Taluk. He expired on

5.9.2008. There are ten legal heirs, out of which the petitioner is the third

one, going by Ext.P1 legal heirship certificate. All the legal heirs have

consented for the petitioner’s appointment as ARD, which is evident from

Ext.P2. Accordingly, an application along with the required certificates,

have been filed as per Exts.P3 to P5. The said application has been rejected

as per Ext.P7, relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in

W.A. No.1217/2009.

2. Evidently, the direction issued by the Division Bench in the

judgment in W.A. No.1217/2009 and another judgment, Ext.P8 will not

prevent the consideration of the claim of legal heirs for appointment on a

temporary basis. The direction in Ext.P8 is that priority contemplated under

Clause 45(2) is only subject to the operation of the reservation under clause

45(2)(i) as far as permanent appointment is concerned. In fact, the operative

portion of the said judgment itself shows that as far as temporary

wpc 12357 /2010 2

appointments are concerned, the authority can make appointment till

permanent appointment is made.

3. Ext.P9 is another judgment in W.P.(C) No.4021/2010 wherein

also a similar direction was issued.

4. Therefore, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to the

second respondent to pass fresh orders with regard to the claim for

temporary appointment. It is made clear that the said temporary

appointment will be valid till a permanent appointment is made in terms of

the directions issued by the Division Bench.

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

kav/