IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8447 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.S.RADHAMONY, SENIOR AUDITOR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, REP. BY IT'S CONVENOR, REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. 4. SMT.D.R.INDULEKHA DEVI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. SRI.P.PADMANABHAN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), PALAKKAD. 6. SRI.FRANCIS JEFFERSUN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR/CONCURRENT AUDITOR, (T.R.C.M.P.U), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. W.P.(C) NO.8447/2009 7. SRI.P.K.JAIN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), ALAPPUZHA. 8. SRI.K.S.CHANDRAN PILLAI, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE DY. REGISTRAR(ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SRI.K.A.RAJEEVAN, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), KANNUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 8447 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Senior Auditor in the department of Co-operation. The claim is for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar. Respondents 4 to 9 herein are her juniors who have already superseded her by the proceedings of the DPC. 2. In Ext.P1 seniority list the petitioner is Sl.No.53. Respondents 4 to 9 are Sl.Nos.54, 55, 59, 60, 61 and 62 respectively. As per Ext.P2 order, she was placed under suspension. But the disciplinary action was dropped as per Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is the said order. Admittedly, three vigilance cases namely C.C.No.51/2005, C.C.No.52/2005 and C.C.No.53/2005 are pending before the Vigilance Court. 3. Ext.P4 is the select list published by the DPC for the year 2008 wherein she was not included but her juniors have been included. A representation was submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent as per Ext.P6. Already the representation was forwarded to the 1st respondent by the Joint Registrar (Audit), Kottayam as per Ext.P5. wpc: 8447 of 2009 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the vigilance cases pending no charge has been framed against the petitioner, and therefore, there cannot be any denial of her right for promotion. Reliance is placed on Rule 28(b)(i) of Part II of the K.S.&S.S.R and the decision of this Court reported in Sasidharan vs. State of Kerala [2008(4) KLT 149]. 5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that the DPC convened on 15.05.2008 for the preparation of select list of Senior Inspector/Auditor of Co- operative Societies fit for promotion as Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies for the year 2008, considered her name for the inclusion in the select list for the year 2008. But then it was decided to supersede her from the Select List, stating that a case was still pending before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur. No charge sheet has been served so far. But she is continuing in the service of the department as she had obtained bail from the Court.” The fact that her juniors have been promoted is also admitted. Again the DPC convened on 19.02.2009, considered her name for the inclusion in the select list. But it was decided to supersede her due to the pendency of the case before the Vigilance Court. wpc: 8447 of 2009 3 In the light of the dictum laid down in Sasidharan Vs. State of Kerala [2008(4) KLT 149] the petitioner could not have been superseded as the charge sheet has not been drawn up so far. It was held by this Court in the above decision that the “embargo on inclusion of a person who faces a vigilance proceedings from being included in the select list for promotion to a selection post would arise only after a charge sheet is drawn up by the Vigilance Court in that regard”. Therefore, there is no justification as such for not including her name in the select list in the light of the Rule 28(b)(i) of Part II of the K.S.&S.S.R. Hence, the petitioner's claim for inclusion will be considered as requested for in Ext.P6 by the 3rd respondent and appropriate action shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps