Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE S.MANU, J
C.S.Vijayakumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.MANU, J.
W.P.(C)No.3669 of 2015 was filed challenging Ext.P32 proceedings of the Institute of Management in Government by which, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Public Relations Officer (PRO) was rejected. The petitioner sought a direction to appoint him as PRO from the date of Ext.P32 order with all consequential benefits. W.P.(C)No.8616 of 2015 was filed by the same petitioner challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as Section Officer.
2. When these cases are taken up today, the learned Standing Counsel for the Institute of Management in Government submitted that, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation long ago and he is no more in service of the Institute. Therefore, W.P.(C)No.3669 of 2015 has become infructuous.
3. Regarding W.P.(C)No.8616 of 2015, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the 4th respondent, whose appointment was under challenge, retired in the year 2017 and therefore, the challenge would not survive. Accordingly, W.P. (C)No.8616 of 2015 has also become infructuous.
In view of the above, both writ petitions are dismissed as infructuous.
Writ petitions become infructuous when the petitioner is no longer in service or the subject of the challenge has ceased to exist.
The court established that the definition of 'Teacher' under the Uttar Pradesh University Act includes the petitioner, entitling him to retirement benefits at 65 years.
The burden of proof lies on the appellant to demonstrate eligibility for enhanced superannuation benefits; mere appointment as Principal does not qualify one for such benefits without proof of Profes....
The management's failure to consider a petitioner's case for extension of retirement age, as mandated by applicable government resolutions, constitutes a violation of the petitioner's rights, justify....
The validity of termination of employment based on the age of retirement as specified in the Service Rules.
Long-term satisfactory service can outweigh initial technical disqualifications, especially when the employee is not at fault for the oversight.
The petitioner was not entitled to regularization of service from 01.01.2006 onwards due to government policy and lack of compliance with minimum service period for pension eligibility.
Administrative delays in appointment cannot disadvantage candidates in seniority and promotion eligibility, ensuring fairness in service matters.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Model Service Regulations and the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.15, dtd. 31/1/2022, to the Writ Petitioner's case, based ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
