Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41378/2016 of SHAMNOON K Vs KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR MINORITIES on 30 December 2016
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938 WP(C).No. 41378 of 2016 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. SHAMNOON K, JUNIOR ASSISTA/LDC, S/O.ALIYI K.M, JALEESA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/9TH POUSHA, 1938
WP(C).No. 41378 of 2016 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
1. SHAMNOON K,JUNIOR ASSISTA/LDC, S/O.ALIYI K.M,JALEESA MANZIL,PANDHEER PADAM,KUNNAMANGALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE - 673 571.
2. ILLYAS V, P.A TO CHAIRMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. USMANPALKUZHI HOUSE, ELAMARAM, CHRUVAYOOR P.O, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 645.
3. SHAMINAS C,JUNIOR ASSISTANT/LDC,D/O.MUHAMMADALI, T.C 19/422(1),S.H MANZIL, POOJAPURA P.O,MUDAVANMUGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4. V. NANDAKUMAR,OFFICE ATTENDANT/DRIVER,S/O. VASANATHAN B, SAJI NIVAS, MULLANCHANI VILLA, KODUNGANOOR P.OKULASEKHARAM.
5. V.K JITHESHAN,OFFICE ATTENDANT/DRIVER,S/O.V.K KUNHIRAMAN,VALLARAKATTUKANDY, KEEZHARIYOOR P.OKOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
---------------------------
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 41378 of 2016 (V)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE 1ST PETITIONERDATED 6-4-2016.DATED 6-4-2016.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE 2ND PETITIONERDATED 30-09-2015.DATED 30-09-2015.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE 3RD PETITIONERDATED 30-03-2016.DATED 30-03-2016.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE 4TH PETITIONERDATED 6-4-2016.DATED 6-4-2016.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE 5TH PETITIONERDATED 7-4-2016.DATED 7-4-2016.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19-10-2016 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONERSENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERVIEW CARD SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 2-12-2016.RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 2-12-2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
mbr/
P.S. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.41378 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2016
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners challenge Exhibit P6 order, as per which, theirservices under contract on various posts are sought to beterminated invoking clause 3(2) of the agreements under which,they were appointed. The petitioners say that their proposedtermination invoking clause 3(2) is completely without any basisand without proper application of mind. They also say that the factthat they have proposed an interview for appointment of freshhands would militate against the very reasons that are stated inExhibit P6.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. In view of the directions that I propose to issue herein, thenotices to respondents 1 and 2 are dispensed with.
4. Since I see that in Exhibit P6, no reasons have been statedas to why the respondents are invoking clause 3(2) of Exhibits P1 toP5 agreements and as to why the petitioners are sought to beterminated, I deem it necessary that the competent authorities bedirected to reconsider the specific reference to as to why theservices of the petitioners are required to be now terminated.
WP(C).41378/16
5. In the above circumstances, I quash Exhibit P6 and directthe competent authority of the first respondent to hear thepetitioners, and give them a reasoned order as to why, if it is sorequired, to terminate them invoking clause 3(2) of Exhibits P1 to P5agreements. This exercise shall be done within a period of onemonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needlessto say, until such the decision is taken and communicated to thepetitioners, as directed herein, the services of the petitioners shallnot be terminated.
The writ petition is ordered as above.
krj.30/12
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge