Dimple Joshy vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

Being aggrieved by the denial of appointment of petitioner from 08.06.2009 to 31.05.2010 on the scale of pay basis, the petitioner is stated to have preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent invoking Rule 92 of the KER. The petitioner states that when no action was taken on Exhibit-P3, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P4 reminder as well. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

Sri. Muhamood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited request of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 revision petition in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Sneha Cherian [2013 (1) KLT 775 (SC)].

I have heard Sri. Bijoy Chandran, the learned Senior Government Pleader as well.

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.