Abdul Rasheed T.M vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Abdul Rasheed T.M vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2020

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.15726 OF 2020


PETITIONER/S:

                ABDUL RASHEED T.M.
                AGED 53 YEARS
                S/O. LATE MUHAMMED, THATTHAKATTU HOUSE, NETTOOR P.O.,
                MARADU, ERNAKULAM

                BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND HARBOUR
                DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

      2         THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                MASTYAFED,TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695 001

      3         THE FISHERIES DIRECTOR,
                VIKAS BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM-695 001


OTHER PRESENT:

                SRI T.P PRADEEP SC,SRI BIMAL K NATH SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.15726 OF 2020                  2




                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner contends that he is working as a machine operator in the Matsyafed factory at Ernakulam from 20.10.2005 onwards on a provisional basis. He contends that he is eligible for permanent appointment which has been denied to him by the 2nd respondent. He points out that persons who are similarly placed as the petitioner were made permanent by the 2 nd respondent and the petitioner was discriminated against. Stating all these aspects and seeking indulgence, Ext.P10 representation was submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. His prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 1 st respondent to consider Ext.P10 on its merits and pass appropriate orders.

2. Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.P.Pradeep, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

3. Without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the merits of the claims of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to take up Exhibit-P10 and pass appropriate orders, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Orders shall be passed expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

WP(C).No.15726 OF 2020 3

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the 1st respondent to ensure compliance.

SD/-


                                              RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                                                          JUDGE
IAP
                                       //TRUE COPY//           P.A.TO JUDGE
 WP(C).No.15726 OF 2020           4




                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED

BY THE MANGER, MALSYA FED NET FACTORY DATED 14.10.2005 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER MAKING PERMANENT APPOINTMENT G.O(MS) NO.60/2015 DATED 28.11.2015 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.09.2014 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C.(OP) NO.195/2018 DATED 18.09.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE REGISTRAR DATED 24.04.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 01.04.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2015 MAKING PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.25519/2019 DATED 31.10.2019 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.05.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.06.2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court