Skip to content


K. Chandrasekharan Nair Vs. State of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Trivandrum and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService;Civil
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No. 25 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Ker229
ActsKerala State Subordinate Services Rules - Rule 28
AppellantK. Chandrasekharan Nair
RespondentState of Kerala, Represented by the Chief Secretary to Govt. of Kerala, Trivandrum and anr.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- .....in dismissing the appellant's writ petition. 2. the use of the word, 'list' in he expression 'select list' in rule 28 (b) (i) of part ii of the kerala state and subordinate services rules does not imply hat there must necessarily be more than one name in the list. according to the instructions given in g. o. (p) no. 420 dated 29-12-1967, the select list is to contain as many names as there are vacancies estimated to arise in the course of the year. the appellant petitioner has no case that there was more than one anticipated vacancy, and hence there is thing to show that the departmental promotion committee was not justified n preparing a list with only one name. the committee found the 2nd respondent superior to the petitioner in merit and ability and as the learned single judge.....
Judgment:

Raman Nayar, C.J.

1. We think the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the appellant's writ petition.

2. The use of the word, 'list' In he expression 'select list' in Rule 28 (b) (i) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules does not imply hat there must necessarily be more than one name in the list. According to the instructions given in G. O. (P) No. 420 dated 29-12-1967, the select list is to contain as many names as there are vacancies estimated to arise in the course of the year. The appellant petitioner has no case that there was more than one anticipated vacancy, and hence there is thing to show that the Departmental Promotion Committee was not justified n preparing a list with only one name. The Committee found the 2nd respondent superior to the petitioner in merit and ability and as the learned single Judge has observed that is a finding amply supported by the materials. It considered and therefore rightly placed the 2nd respondent's name in the list in preference to the petitioner's. There being only one anticipated vacancy--or at least so it would seem--there could be no question of placing more than one name in the list and including that of the petitioner who also, it would appear, was thought suitable, so that his seniority in the lower grade could operate to his advantage in terms of the rule and place him above the 2nd respondent.

3. Appeal dismissed. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //