Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing P.R.Pavithran(Pallikadavil ... vs State Of Kerala

Subbaya Bai vs Karunakaran Nambiar on 29 October, 2004

7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Pavithran v. State of Kerala (1970 KLT 581). There the Court set aside Rule 37(4) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, which gives power to the Registrar to appoint two persons to serve on the Committee of the society, as it was in excess of the powers given to the Registrar under the Act. That is not the present issue.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - J B Koshy - Full Document

P.Sundaran vs Kerala Water Authority on 5 January, 1991

4. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 has contended that petitioners are not entitled to claim regularisation at this belated stage. It is contended that the petitioners 2 to 4 retired even before Ext.P8, order dated 20.05.2008 and hence they cannot claim the benefit of the said order and Exts.P9 and P10, judgments. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent has contended that petitioners are late in approaching this Court and hence the principle of sit back theory enunciated in Pavithran Vs. State of Kerala (2009(4) KLT 20) would apply.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satheesan.T vs Registrar (Sj) on 15 January, 2001

The said decision is to the effect that whenever an adverse order is passed against a person, unless it is challenged before the appropriate forum W.P.(C).34316/2008 6 within appropriate time limit, the said order would become final and the person affected by it would be bound by it. I have carefully gone through the decision in Pavithran's case. A scanning of the said decision would reveal that the Full Bench did not lay down the dictum that in such circumstances it would take away the right of the appointing authority or transferring authority in setting at right an illegality crept in the order of transfer. It should be presumed that such an inherent power is vested with the appointing authority as also the transferring authority. The fact that the respondents were working in the post of Process Server and even on their transfer under Ext.P6 which carried a condition adverse to them to the effect that their seniority would be only below the Peons working in Civil Judicial District of Thalassery, they were posted only in the post of Process Server is not in dispute. In other words, admittedly, the objectionable clause in Ext.P6 has never been pressed into service. As already noticed, nothing is there on record to show that inter district transfer of the party respondents was effected after reverting them to the post of Peons. The contention of the petitioners that the respondents were W.P.(C).34316/2008 7 illegally granted seniority in the cadre of Process Servers cannot be sustained as admittedly it is only after their joining in Thalassery as Process Servers that vide Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Process Servers. When these facts are not in dispute it cannot be said that the first respondent had committed an illegality in passing Ext.P15. Ext.P16 is only a consequential order of Ext.P15. In troth, what was done by the first respondent is only setting right the illegality committed in Ext.P6 as also while rejecting Ext.P8 under Ext.P10. When justice is done to the respondents 3 to 7 as per Ext.P15, it does not call for any interference. In such circumstances, this writ petition is liable to fail and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1