IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 17696 of 2009(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.SISUPALAN, S/O.C.R.KUMARAVELU, AGED 57, PALWAY, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-29. BY ADV. MR.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCT LTD., REP.BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. GENERAL MANAGER, TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCT LTD., KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PERSONNEL MANAGER, TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCT LTD., KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.ANAND (A.201), R1 BY SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN , SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No.17696 of 2009-F ------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.R.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Latha Krishnan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who is presently working as Senior Process Operator in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., has filed this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the General Manager, Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. to promote him to the post of Supervisor (Production). The petitioner contends relying on Ext.P1 reply sent by the Public Information Officer of Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. that the next promotion post for a Senior Process Operator is Supervisor (Production), that no vacancy presently exists and that as and when vacancies arise, he will be considered for promotion. Relying on Ext.P1 the petitioner contends that he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Supervisor (Production). Smt.Latha Krishnan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that Ext.P1 is only a reply given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that there are 13 persons senior to the petitioner in service and that the reply given to him in Ext.P1 has to be understood W.P(C) No.17696 of 2009-F 2 in the light of the said factual position. 3. In my opinion in such circumstances, it is not possible to read into Ext.P1, any admission by the respondents that the petitioner is the next person eligible to be promoted. The petitioner has furnished only the answer given to him by the Public Information Officer. He has not produced the letter sent by him wherein he had asked for the information. Therefore in the light of submission made by the learned standing counsel, I am not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that by reason of the statement in Ext.P1 he is entitled to be promoted. In view of the fact that there are 13 persons senior to the petitioner awaiting promotion, the petitioner cannot claim promotion overlooking his seniors. The persons who are senior to the petitioner are not in the party array. Therefore it would not be just and proper for this Court to entertain this writ petition and grant the relief prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab