JOBINI T CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved since her appointment as UPSA is not approved for the period from 2.6.1997 to 22.3.1998. It is seen from the impugned Ext.P7 order passed by the Government that there was objection with regard to an appointment under Rule 51B Chapter XIV-A K.E.R. According to the petitioner, there was another vacancy for accommodating the 51B claimant and that the claimant had in fact given a no objection with regard to the approval of appointment of the petitioner. There is no counter affidavit. It is seen from the impugned order that the two crucial contentions of the petitioner mentioned above are not referred to in Ext.P7. I quash Ext.P7. There will be a direction to the Government to pass fresh orders in the light of the two contentions referred to above within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, with notice to the petitioner and any other affected party. The consequential benefits if any, to which the petitioner is found eligible shall also be disbursed within another one month. The writ petition is disposed of as above.