Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Kerala State Excise Staff Association vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2010 cites

State Of Kerala vs Krishna Kumar.T.G on 26 June, 2009

5. While so, Ext.P5 order dated 4.4.2006 was issued by the Government directing that the direct recruits will be given seniority as per the provisions contained in Rule 27(c) of KS & SSR. Ext.P5 order was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.13177/2006. The writ petition was allowed quashing Ext.P5 and directing to reconsider the matter with notice to all concerned. Petitioners state that accordingly the Government reconsidered the matter and issued Ext.P6 order dated 28.2.2007 restoring Ext.P4 order. It is stated that Ext.P6 was also set aside by this court upholding Ex.P5 and that the Writ Appeals filed against the said judgment were allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge was reversed by a Division Bench of this court in the judgment in State of Kerala V. Krishna Kumar (2009(3) KLT 274).
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Arun Tewari & Ors vs Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors. Etc on 1 December, 1997

(c).No.6036/2010. First of all this plea of the petitioners cannot be considered for the reason that none who are likely to be affected by such rectification of the seniority list has been impleaded as parties to this writ petition. Further there is no prayer to quash the seniority list. That apart, if the declaration about the vacancy W.P.(C) No.6036/10 & conn.cases :18 : position is granted that will also be affecting the candidates included in the ranked list. None of the selected candidates are made parties to this writ petition. Therefore both prayers affecting the candidates in the ranked list and also those included in the seniority list, are sought without impleading the affected persons. This view is supported by the Apex Court judgments in Arun Tewari V. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh (AIR 1998(SC 33) and Siraj V. High Court of Kerala (2006(2) KLT 923). For that reason itself, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 183 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Mohanan vs Director Of Homeopathy on 26 July, 2006

19. Counsel for the petitioners in WP(c).No.36753/09, 29087/09 and 12298/2010, contended that Kerala Excise Preventive Subordinate Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2008 was published as per GO(P) No.113/08/TD dated 4th June, 2008. According to the learned counsel, the amendment to the Special Rules came into force with effect from 30th March, 2001. It was argued that with this amendment direct recruitment has been dispensed with and therefore, there could not have been any direct recruitment to the category of Excise Preventive Officers. However, a close reading of the amendment, Ext.P8 in WP(c).No.6036/2010, shows that the deletion of "direct recruitment" is only with effect from 4.6.2008 and that the retrospectivity with effect from 30th March, 2010 is given only in respect of the second proviso against category II in column 2 of Rule 2 to the Special Rules. Therefore, the effect of amendment is that direct recruitment has been W.P.(C) No.6036/10 & conn.cases :20 : abolished with effect from 4.6.2008. If that be the position, the amendment can have relevance only in respect of the vacancies subsequent to 4.6.2008. This position is settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the judgment in Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (2006(3) KLT 641).
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 41 - S Jagan - Full Document
1