IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31338 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. S.SUNIL KUMAR, PEON, ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, ARANMULA. 2. S.SREELEKHA, PEON, DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI.P.GOPAL, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31338 OF 2009 (J) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are peons working in the Establishment Section of the 2nd respondent. They aspire for promotion to the post of LDC/Sub Group Officer Grade II. Initially, 22% of the posts were reserved for low paid employees of the Board with separate reservation for establishment and temple employees. 2. When that quota was dispensed with at a later stage by Ext.P3 order, this order was challenged before this Court in WP (C) No.32588/06 resulting in Ext.P4 judgment invalidating Ext.P3. According to the petitioners, subsequent to Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition were given promotion by Ext.P5 order. 3. According to them, though petitioners are also similarly situated and are eligible, their case was not considered. With this grievance, they have filed Ext.P10 representation before the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, they complain that the representation is also not considered. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. WPC 31338/09 :2 : 4. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the respondents also. 5. As already noticed, the grievance of the petitioners is that though similarly situated other employees have been given promotion, their case has not been considered. Now that this complaint has been urged before the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P10, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the said representation. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp