SOBHA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assessment of suitability under R.28 of the KS &" SSR is generally on consideration of the Confidential Reports for the three preceding years. Does the Rules require that the Reports should be those prepared at the relevant period

(2.) Ext. P9 order is under challenge. The said order is passed by the second respondent pursuant to Ext. P7 Judgment of this Court. Petitioner filed the Original Petition leading to Ext. P7 aggrieved by her supersession in the select list of Lecturers fit for promotion to the category of Assistant Professors in the Department of Paediatrics under the Medical Education Service for the year 2001. Ext. P5 is the select list. Petitioner availed long leave from 8.4.1995 and thereafter joined duty on 10.4.2001. She filed Ext. P6 review petition. That was directed to be considered as per Ext. P7 Judgment. It was made clear in the Judgment as follows:

(3.) The review petition was rejected by the Government as per Ext. P9. Learned Government Pleader referring to the counter affidavit submits that the DPC was justified in superseding the petitioner, since her Confidential Reports for the three years prior to her proceeding on long leave were not prepared during the relevant period, and that she has not completed one year as on the date of the DPC meeting. Shri. Sugathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the statutory provision under R.28 of the KS & SSR as well as the decision reported in Vishnu Nampoothiry v. State of Kerala, 2000 (3) KLT 627 , submits that the stand taken by the second respondent is totally erroneous.