JAYACHANDRAN T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court calling into question Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the first respondent - Government of Kerala, as per which, their request for granting re-option has been rejected solely for the reason that they had not applied for the same within the three month period, as was fixed in the Government Order No.G.O.(P) No.19/2017/Fin. dated 09.02.2017. The petitioners say that they were not aware of this Government Order or that there was a time limit within which they had to apply for the grant of re-option; and they, therefore, pray that Exts.P6 and P7 be set aside and the competent Secretary of the Government be directed to reconsider their case.

(2.) In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by Sri.S.Ajith, their learned counsel, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Bijoy Chandran, submitted that, as is evident from Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of re-option, since they did not apply for the same within the time granted to them. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, therefore, the Government had no other way but to reject it on this reason and that the contention of the petitioner, that it is so done on technicalities, are not tenable because no action could have been taken against the tenor of the said Government Order.

(3.) Sri.Babu Paul, learned standing counsel for the second respondent - High Court of Kerala, submitted that though his client does not had any specific comment in this matter, the fact remains that in Ext.P7, the sole reason for rejection of grant of re-option by the petitioners was that they did not apply within time. He says that since the second respondent has no role to play in this, no orders may be issued against them.