IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Con.Case(C). No. 1434 of 2010(S) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20605/2003 Dated 19/02/2010 ........................................................ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- J.SURESH KUMAR, S/O.M.JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS, RESERVE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, A.R.CAMP, PULINKUDY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME AND VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT AND CONVENER OF DPC (HIGHER) FOR THE POST OF ASSISTANT COMMANDANT IN ARMED RESERVE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SRI.JACOB PUNNOOSE, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cont. Case (C) No. 1434 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains that the directions in Annexure-I judgment, have not been complied with. The directions in Annexure-I judgment reads as follows: “Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the 29 persons under law. It is declared so and Ext.P6 shall be revised accordingly. Appropriate orders regarding the revision of seniority in accordance with the above finding shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, I make it clear that no further revision of seniority, at the instance of anybody else shall be entertainable on the basis of the findings in this writ petition, since no other person has approached this Court in time seeking the relief except the petitioner. The original petition is allowed as above.” 2. Admittedly, correct seniority has been assigned to the petitioner as directed. The petitioner now submits that in accordance with that seniority, he was being given provisional promotion and the DPC has not been convened for preparing select list for regular promotion. Insofar as promotion was not a subject matter in Annexure-I judgment, I do not think that the claim of the petitioner can be adjudicated in this Contempt case. Cont. Case (C) No. 1434 of 2010-(S) -2- Insofar as the directions in Annexure-I judgment have been complied with, this Contempt of Court Case is closed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE krj