Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.Padmanabhan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 29 May, 2008

Author: S.Siri Jagan

Bench: S.Siri Jagan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15917 of 2008(T)


1. K.PADMANABHAN, PADMASRI, VAKETHODY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. C.KUMARAN, S/O. RAMAN,VIASAKHAM,
3. APPU.P.,S/O. VELAYUDHAN, POOLAKAL HOUSE
4. P.K.VALSALA, PALATHARA MUTHU MAHAL,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA  REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

3. SCRUTINY, COMMITTY FOR

4. DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED CASTE/SCHEDULED

5. TAHASILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :29/05/2008

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                       = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                        W.P.(C).No. 15917 OF 2008
                          = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                    Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008.

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the Government, whereby it has been clarified that Peruvannan is not a synonym of Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan communities shown in serial number 37 of the Constitution(Scheduled Castes) Orders (Second Amendment) Act, 2002, and hence no correction of caste name from Peruvannan which is included in the list of OBC and OEC to Vannan/Mannan/Peruvannan(Scheduled Caste) communities be made on this count. Ext.P7 order has been issued pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Madhavi vs. Scrutiny Committee (2004 (3) KLT 967). The petitioners contention is that, that judgment was rendered without taking into account Ext.P1 order passed by the Government as early as on 13.9.1958. Whether the Division Bench decision has been rendered taking into account Ext.P1 or not, the same is binding on me and I cannot take a different view in this writ petition. Since Ext.P7 has been passed in accordance with the said judgment, following the judgment this writ petition is dismissed.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-