SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 36

J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL
Geetha V. M. – Appellant
Versus
Rethnasenan K. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Adv. Mr. Harshed Sundar, Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mr. Santhosh K, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. K. Sasi, AOR Ms. Meena K Poulose, Adv. Mr. Riddhi Bose, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. Rishi Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Sampriti Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Understood. I am ready to analyze the legal document you provide.

Please paste the content of the document below. Once provided, I will: 1. Extract the key points based on the text. 2. Identify the specific sections or paragraphs supporting each point. 3. Format the output using square brackets to cite the references individually (e.g., (!) (!) ), ensuring they are not combined.

Awaiting your document content.


JUDGMENT :

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. The present appeals have been filed impugning the order passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on 13.03.2019 in W.A. Nos. 1418, 1525, 1527 and 1652 of 2010, reversing the judgments dated 29.06.2010 and 30.06.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 4599, 12381 and 14091 of 2010 and W.P. (C) No. 20269 of 2010 respectively.

2. Appellants herein are the employees who were working in the Directorate of Health Services (the “DHS”) later absorbed on furnishing option as demanded, in the Directorate of Medical Education (the “DME”) on account of abolition of dual control system of the staff in medical colleges under the policy decision of the State of Kerala. The rival claims of inter-se seniority between the original employees of DME (hereinafter referred as ‘original employees’) and absorbed employees from DHS in the respective categories of DME (hereinafter referred to as ‘absorbed employees’) made by both were decided by the order impugned.

3. Writ Petition No. 4599/2010 was filed by the absorbed employees contending that they are entitled to retain their existing seniority even on absorption in the DME in terms of Rule 8 of Appendix I of

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top