IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25538 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BABURAJ.T.P., WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR, TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION O/O.THE DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN,J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25538 of 2008 M -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Workshop Instructor in Technical High School, Kozhikode. It is stated that on 15.7.1996, the petitioner entered service as Tradesman and on 24.9.1998 he was promoted as Workshop Instructor. On 19.7.2000, the probation of the petitioner was declared. The petitioner states that on 6.12.2005, he acquired B.Tech Degree in Mechanical Engineering with 62.27% marks. B.Tech with 60% marks is the required qualification for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in Polytechnics/equated categories such as Instructor Grade I in Engineering Colleges, Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnics and Superintendents of Technical High Schools. The name of the petitioner was included in the final seniority list of Workshop Instructors for the year 2005-2006 as per Ext.P1. 2. The petitioner contends that as per the Special Rules applicable to the case, the petitioner comes under category No.3, viz., “in the absence of candidates under items 1 and 2 above, by transfer from any other service in the Technical Education Department”. Petitioner submitted a representation to the Director of Technical Education. The Director of Technical Education disposed of the representation as per Ext.P10 order dated 19.6.2008. The view taken by the Director of Technical Education is that out of the eight vacancies that WP(C) No.25538/2008 2 occurred in 2006, four were in the category of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering/equated categories and four were in the category of Superintendent in Technical High School and that cannot be interchanged. The vacancies were considered in the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and select list was prepared. The promotions were made as per the approved select list. It was also held that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered in the field of choice for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering/equated categories. Challenging Ext.P10 order the petitioner has filed Ext.P11 revision dated 19.7.2008 before the second respondent. Ext.P11 revision is pending disposal. 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in the Writ Petition are the following:- “i. issue a Writ of Certiorari any other Writ, Order or Direction setting aside Exhibit P10 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal and issue Order to the effect that the petitioner is transferred and posted as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in Polytechnics to any of the 8 vacancies occurred in the year 2006 specified in Exhibit P5, with retrospective effect with back wages and all service benefits on the basis of the date of acquisition of qualification and date of occurrence of vacancy after calling for and perusing the records leading to the same, WP(C) No.25538/2008 3 ii. issue a Writ of Mandamus of any other Writ, Order Writ, Order or Direction directing the respondents 1 & 2 to cancel Exhibit P10 since which is illegal and direct the respondents to transfer and post the petitioner from the post of Workshop Instructor in Mechanical Engineering to the post of Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering in Polytechnics to any one of the 8 vacancies occurred in the year 2006, specified in Exhibit P5, with retrospective effect with back wages and all other service benefits, on the basis of the principle of date of acquisition of qualification and date of occurrence of vacancy, iii. issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate Order upon Exhibit P11 Revision Petition after affording opportunity for hearing to the petitioner with a speaking Order, within a time limit specified, iv. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the factual circumstances of the case, v. Award cost for the proceedings to the petitioner from the 1st respondent.” WP(C) No.25538/2008 4 4. Since Ext.P11 revision is pending before the second respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to get only relief No.iii, for the present. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:- 1. The second respondent shall consider and dispose of Ext.P11 revision filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the Writ Petition before the second respondent. 3. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The second respondent shall consider the grievance voiced by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. All other contentions in the Writ Petition are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. cks