IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 18946 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANILKUMAR M.G., SENIOR ASSISTANT, K.S.E.B., PALLOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM, K.S.E.B., VYDHYUTHI BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1,2 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).18946/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the Kerala State Electricity Board. He was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent and was included in the list of eligible persons. But thereafter, he has not been promoted though other persons junior to him in the list have been promoted. Hence the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that pursuant to Ext.P1, 200 Senior Assistants were promoted to the cadre of Senior Superintendent. But the petitioner's promotion was withheld because of a vigilance enquiry pending against him. The Chief Vigilance officer of the Board has reported that disciplinary proceedings is pending against the petitioner for defalcation of Board's money during his incumbency as Senior Assistant at Electrical Section, Kanjarapally. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Alexander W.P.(C).18946/09 2 George and learned senior counsel Mr.Asok M.Cherian. 4. The Post of Senior Superintendent does not seem to be a selection post. Going by the pleadings, promotion to the post is on the basis of seniority. Petitioner has been included in the list of eligible persons. Pendency of disciplinary proceedings or even a vigilance enquiry would be adequate to withhold a candidate otherwise found eligible, where promotion is to a selection post. 5. That would not be the same in the case of Senior Superintendent where promotion is on the basis of seniority. I further take note of the fact that the materials on record do not suggest that any charges have been framed against the petitioner in a vigilance case as such. In these circumstances, respondents shall proceed to pass orders promoting the petitioner as a Senior Superintendent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that any claim made by the petitioner for promotion with effect from a date prior to the date on which he is to be promoted shall be considered W.P.(C).18946/09 3 only after the disciplinary proceedings are completed and the vigilance enquiry is over. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs