IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 1087 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.16722/2008 Dated 19/03/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. SATHEESH.R, SATHEESH BHAVANAM,NETTIYADU, EDAPALLY KOTTA.PO,CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. S.ANSAR,KINARUVILAYIL HOUSE,PORUKKARA, EDAPPALLY KOTTA.PO,CHAVARA.PO,KOLLAM. 3. ANEESH KUMAR.B.G,BUNGLAVIL VEEDU, PANMANA,CHAVARA.PO,KOLLAM. 4. SUJILAL.S,LAL BHAVAN,CHERUSSERRY BHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 5. BINU.S,PUTHALATHU HOUSE,PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.PO. 6. FRANCIS XAVIER.G,KANNANGEAZHATHU VEEDU, MEKKADU,CHAVARA.PO,KOLLAM. 7. SHIBU.Y.PANICKER,NELLIVILA PANICKER'S VIEW,EIRUMADANANGADU.PO, EZHUKONE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY SR. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS - R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1087 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated 4th June, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were applicants for appointment to the post of Junior Technician-cum-Fitter Trainee under the 2nd respondent Company. They are entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment, as persons affected by land acquisition made for the purpose of establishing the industrial unit of the Company. When the 2nd respondent invited applications for the above post, they applied and they were included in the wait list. There were 11 candidates in the main list. All of them were appointed. In fact, there were no vacancies to accommodate the appellants. But, they found that there are some vacancies in the higher cadre and if promotions are ordered, the promotees will vacate the lower post, which may result in vacancies for accommodating them. In the above factual background, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs. The 2nd respondent resisted the Writ Petition, pointing out that there are no WA 1087/2009 2 vacancies to accommodate the persons included in the wait list. It was submitted that the persons in the lower grade are not qualified for promotion and therefore, the contention of the appellants that on their promotion vacancies will be available also, is untenable. The learned Single Judge accepted the above contentions. The appellants also pointed out the steps taken by the 2nd respondent to make appointments to certain posts, based on internal selection. The learned Judge also found nothing wrong with that, as it was observed that internal selection is being made in the absence of any qualified candidates for promotion from the feeder categories concerned. 2. Based on the above findings, the learned Single Judge declined to grant any reliefs to the appellants. But, it was ordered that if they have any grievance, they may move the Government. In that event, the Government will consider the same. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. We heard Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillay for the appellants. We notice that a person included in the rank list or wait list has no right to get appointment. He has only right to be considered, when vacancies are filled up. In the case on hand, there are no vacancies. The contention of the appellants that if the persons in the lower grade are promoted, that may create vacancies to accommodate them, was also rightly repelled, as, such WA 1087/2009 3 persons to be promoted were unqualified for promotion. So, we find nothing illegal with the findings of the learned Single Judge, on the above contentions of the appellants. 4. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that though the learned Single Judge permitted the appellants to move the Government, no time limit was fixed for disposing of their representations. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this Court may fix a time limit for the Government to consider their representations. It is not the law that if no time limit is fixed by this Court for doing something, the said direction need not be obeyed. A Division Bench of this Court in Balakrishna Pisharady v. K.S.E.B. [1987(2) KLT 937] held that if no time limit is fixed in the direction issued to the K.S.E.B., the same has to be implemented within a reasonable time limit. So, in this case, even if there is no time limit, the Government are bound to consider the representations of the appellants within a reasonable time limit. That time limit will depend upon the facts of each case. In some case, it may be three months. In some other case, it may be one month. So, we are of the view that even if no time limit is fixed, the Government are bound to dispose of the representations filed by the appellants within a reasonable time limit and if it is not done, they have a WA 1087/2009 4 cause of action to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nm/