Kerala High Court
Joseph K.J vs State Of Kerala
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/23RD POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1202 of 2017 (A)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
JOSEPH K.J.,
S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS,
KANDATHIL HOUSE,
THIRUMENI P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2. MISSION DIRECTOR,
(NHM) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
3. MEDICAL OFFICER,
CHC, PANATHADY, KASARGOD DISTRICT.
R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER NISHA BOSE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MIS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
WP(C).No. 1202 of 2017 (A)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-3-16.
P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT.
P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-6-16.
P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL.
P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5-9-16.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
EL
P.V.ASHA J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.1202 of 2017
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner who has been working as a Staff Nurse in the Endosulfan Rehabilitation Project under the National Health Mission, since 01.01.2009, is aggrieved by the refusal to renew his appointment. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the second respondent, pointing out that the appraisal reports have not been furnished in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Ext.P1. The State Administrator HR Manager had rejected his request as per Ext.P4, without hearing the petitioner and without considering the contentions raised by him.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Ext.P5 order is passed by an incompetent authority. Since the petitioner has filed the representation Ext.P4 before the second respondent, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on it in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Government Orders within a period W.P.(C).No.1202 of 2017 2 of 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
AS