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 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

K.R. Raveendran vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2008

Author: Siri Jagan

Bench: S.Siri Jagan

       

  

  

 
 
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                 PRESENT:

                            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
                                                       &
                              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/3RD PHALGUNA 1934

                               WA.No. 99 of 2009 ( ) IN WP(C).30101/2008
                                    ------------------------------------------
    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C).30101/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
                                           DATED 03-11-2008
APPELLANT(S):
------------------------

            K.R. RAVEENDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
            S/O. M.K. RAGHAVAN, DEPUTY GENERAL
            MANAGER (FA & IA) IN CHARGE, MATSYAFED, KAMALESWARAM
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADVS.SRI.C.HARIKUMAR
                          SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K.
                          SMT.MADHURI ANAND

RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------

        1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
            PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            FISHERIES AND PROTS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR
            FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT LTD., (MATSYAFED)
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING, DIRECTOR.

        3. THE REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES
            CO-OPERATIVE VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYA MOHANAN, SC, MATSYAFED
          R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.A.REZIYA.



            THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-02-2013, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                 S.SIRI JAGAN & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
                    ==================
                          W.A.No. 99 of 2009
                    ==================
             Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2013
                           J U D G M E N T

Siri Jagan, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.30101/2008 is the appellant in this writ appeal. He filed the writ petition challenging the action on the part of the respondents in filling up the post of Deputy General Manager (Finance, Accounts and Internal Audit) by deputation. According to him, as per the feeder category rules prevailing, the method of recruitment to the said post is by promotion and does not authorize filling up of the post by deputation. Therefore, the appellant sought the following relief in the writ petition:

"to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order, directing and compelling the second respondent not to fill up the post of Deputy General Manager (FA & IA) by deputation."

By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge found that Section 80B(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 185A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules provide for deputation and, therefore, for the purpose of deciding the question, the feeder category rules alone may not be the deciding factor. But, apart from that, the learned Single Judge W.A.99/09 - : 2 :-

found that even assuming that the filling up of the post by deputation cannot be sustained, the appellant is not entitled to promotion to the said post insofar as he is not included in the feeder category for such promotion. The appellant is challenging the said judgment.
The contention of the appellant in the writ appeal is that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the filling up of the post by deputation is permissible under law is unsustainable. The appellant does not challenge the other finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant not being in the feeder category for promotion to the post, even if he wins the case on the other point, he is not entitled to the ultimate relief, which he claims. That being so, we are of opinion that this appeal is an exercise in futility. Even otherwise, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sdk+                                 A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE
          ///True copy///



                           P.A. to Judge

W.A.99/09    - : 3 :-