T.Mangalanandan vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

T.Mangalanandan vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2010

Bench: Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24216 of 2010(B)


1. T.MANGALANANDAN, FIELD ASSISTANT,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VALSALAKUMARI S., FIELD ASSISTANT,
3. SAIPRASAD P.B.,  FIELD ASSISTANT,
4. SIVAPRASAD U., FIELD ASSISTANT,
5. GOPAKUMAR N., INSECT COLLECTOR,
6. G.SAMUEL, FIELD ASSISTANT,
7. AMBIKA D., FIELD ASSISTANT,
8. ASSISSI E.P., FIELD ASSISTANT,
9. VALSALA M.K., FIELD ASSISTANT,
10. SUNANDAKUMARI P.T., FIELD ASSISTANT,
11. VIDYADHARAN C.K., RESEARCH ASSISTANT,

                        Vs



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

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/08/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.24216 OF 2010(B)
             --------------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are Field Assistants in the Health and Family Welfare Department. In this writ petition what they claim is that they should be deputed for training as Multii Purpose Works Training. It is stated that 84 persons were deputed for training and out of them 12 have already retired from service. Therefore petitioners requested that they be deputed for training in the vacancies that arose on account of the retirement of the aforesaid 12 candidates. This claim was considered and rejected by Ext.P6 order of the Director of Health Service. It is challenging this order that this writ petition is filed.

2. There are three reasons stated in Ext.P6 which reads as under.

(1) The course has been started on 5.4.2010 and now 4 months have been elapsed. As the tenure of the course is one year and if a new admission is done at this time, he cannot complete the course in time.

(2) The certificate in this regard is issued to the effect that the incumbent has undergone training for a period of one year. In your case, such a certificate cannot be issued.

WPC.No. 24216/2010 :2 :

(3) If a new candidate is admitted, the examination will not be conducted in time which will adversely affect the future prospects of all other candidates undergoing MPW training."

3. Thus it is obvious that the training has already commenced on 5.4.2010 and that a substantial part of training has already over. The other reason stated also shows that if admission is granted at this distance of time, it will delay the completion of course and will also result in delaying the examination as well. Therefore Ext.P6 order rejecting the petitioner's request cannot be said to be arbitrary warranting interference of this court.

4. Counsel for the petitioner referred to me Ext.P2 order and contended that in 2006 belated requests were entertained and candidates were deputed with a request to the Principals of the training colleges to arrange classes on holidays to compensate the gap already caused. It may be open to the Government to make such arrangements but if the Government have declined to make arrangements this court cannot compel the Government to adopt such a course. I am not inclined to think that Ext.P6 is vitiated for any reason.

Writ Petition is dismissed.


                                          (ANTONY DOMINIC)
vi                                              JUDGE

WPC.No. 24216/2010
                      :3 :

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court