Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.20 seconds)
Documents citing Madhu S vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 10 January, 2017

Sumod vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 14 June, 2022

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that as an interim measure, with a view to protecting the interest of the petitioners herein, directions can be issued to the respondents to place on record the cadre strength of the post notified and to which the petitioners can aspire for promotion and also the backlog vacancies as on date calculated by the respondents based on directions issued by this Court in Madhu (supra). The respondents shall place on record the above details within a period of W.P.(C) No.17626 of 2022 5 three weeks.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Madhu S vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 23 June, 2022

2. Smt. Shameena Salahudeen, the learned counsel pointed out that the steps initiated by respondents 1 and 2 to fill up the vacancies in the post of LD Clerk/Sub Group Officer Gr.II through 'Direct Recruitment' without providing for reservations in promotions cannot be sustained. The learned counsel would urge that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the respondents 1 to 3 in complying with the provisions of Act 1 of 1996 and this Court in Madhu S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors. [2017 (1) KLT 653] had directed the respondent Board to take emergent steps to see that the posts in the Devaswom Board, which can be reserved for persons with disability, are identified under Section 32 of the Act, by the Government. Directions were also issued to the Board to take urgent steps for the appointment of WP(C) No.20301/2022 4/6 W.P.(C) No.20301 of 2022 2 physically handicapped candidates under 3% seats, reserved for them in the identified posts. While doing so, it was ordered that the handicapped employees working under the Board and eligible for appointment by transfer/promotion shall also be considered against the vacancies in identified posts in the 3% quota. According to the learned counsel, no steps were initiated by the respondents to comply with the directions and the petitioner had to initiate Contempt proceedings, which is still pending. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent has now issued Ext.P6 order restricting the right of the petitioner to be considered for promotion under Quota reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities from 22.9.2021, the date on which posts were identified. According to the petitioner, the same is illegal and against the provisions of Act 1 of 1996 and Act 49 of 2016.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document
1