CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 05 KL CK 0029

Roopa .P vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 28 May 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devan Ramachandran, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 38561 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 361 words
1.

The petitioner says that she was appointed as a 'Sweeper' in the services of the Kannur District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank for short), with effect from 15.09.2013 and that she was shifted to the post of 'Peon' with effect from 20.08.2016. The petitioner alleges that on 01.07.2017, she was disengaged from the service, without citing any reason, by the Bank, with the singular intention of accommodating the 4th respondent. The petitioner, therefore, contends that her disengagement is illegal and that she be directed to be re-appointed after terminating the services of the 4th respondent.

2.

The learned standing counsel for the Bank, Sri.M.Sasindran, submits that the allegations of the petitioner are completely untrue and that the 4th respondent has never been appointed in the services of the Bank. He says that there is no such person now serving the Bank and that he was never appointed and therefore, that the petitioner's apprehensions are all completely conjectural and speculative. He further says that there are no vacancies to accommodate the petitioner as of now and therefore, that this writ petition must fail.

3.

On hearing Sri.M.Sasindran as afore, Smt.Thulasi K. Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that if the stand of the Bank is that there are no vacancies to accommodate the petitioner at this point of time, they may be directed to consider her case as and when vacancies arise in future.

4.

Sri.M.Sasindran in response, submits that there is no impediment in considering the petitioner, as and when vacancies arise, however, only subject to her entitlement and qualification as per law.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition recording the submissions of Sri.M.Sasindran that the 4th respondent has never been appointed in the services of the Bank and further, recording his undertaking that as and when vacancies arise in future, the petitioner will be allowed to apply and that her case will be considered in terms of law, subject to her qualifications and other imperative criteria.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM THE BANK.