High CourtsSingle Bench

V.K.Jayasree vs P.V.Mohanan

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 January 2023 · Citation: (2023) 01 KL CK 0050

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
CON.Case (C) No. 1089 Of 2007
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 450 words

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J

1.

This Contempt Case is preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment dated 19.12.2005 in O.P No.28077 of 1999. When the matter was taken up on 19.12.2022, there was no representation for the petitioner and hence the matter was posted today. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner.

2.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein it is stated that the Manager of MVHSS, Perinjanam, had appointed the petitioner herein as HSA (Physical Science) from 28.09.1996 to 27.9.1998 against the leave vacancy of certain P.A Sukumaran, HSA who had entered on Leave without Allowance for the period. The respondent rejected the appointment for the reason that there were already 11 posts of HSA (Science) in total, and for the reason that further appointments in that category will exceed the sanctioned number of posts. Though an appeal was preferred, the same was also rejected by the DPI. Later, the petitioner was appointed again as HSA (Physical Science) at RMV HSS, Perinjanam, from 28.09.1998 onwards in the leave vacancy of Sri. P.K. Sukumaran, who entered on leave from 28.09.1998 till the date of his retirement on 31.03.1999. However, approval to the appointment of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 6.11.1998 on the ground that the appointment order was issued by the correspondent instead of the manager and for the failure to furnish the required documents.

3.

Whileso, the petitioner preferred O.P No.28077 of 1999 seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner for the period from 28.09.1996 to 27.09.1998 and from 28.09.1998 onwards and to release salary and all consequential reliefs. By an interim order dated 11.11.1999, this Court stayed the orders rejecting the grant of approval. Later by judgment dated 19.12.2005, the original petition was disposed of in terms of the interim order.

4.

It is stated that the respondent has approved the appointment of Smt.V.K.Jayasree as HSA (Physical Science) for the period from 28.09.1996 to 27.09.1998, provisionally subject to further orders from the Government. It is further stated that the 2nd appointment of Smt.V.K.Jayasree was made against the vacancy of Sri. P.K Sukumaran, who availed leave from 28.09.1998 till his retirement. However, no leave was sanctioned to Sri.P.K.Sukumaran beyond 27.09.1998. Therefore, according to the respondent, there is no established vacancy to justify the appointment of the petitioner with effect from 28.09.1998 onwards.

It was in the said circumstances that the approval of the petitioner as HSA (Physical Science) from 28.09.1998 to 31.03.1999 was rejected. Having considered the assertions in the affidavit, I do not think that any case of contempt is made out.

This Contempt Case is closed.