IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29209 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SREENIVASAN, PART TIME SWEEPER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,KOLLAM. 2. P.R.BEENA, PART TIME SWEEPER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,PUNALUR. 3. SUSEELAN, PART TIME SWEEPER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. J.SREERAJ, PART TIME SWEEPER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,THIRUVALLA. 5. M.P.VALSAMA, PART TIME SWEEPER,ASSISTANT ENGINEER'S OFFICE, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GEN.), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29209 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are part time Sweepers in the Maramath wing of the 1st respondent. They claim promotion as Full Time Sweepers on par with the Part Time Sweepers in the temple wing of the 1st respondent. 2. Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no post of Full Time Sweeper in the Maramath Wing and that taking into account the lack of avenues of promotion, their retirement age has been fixed at 70 years and it is also stated that the post has been made pensionable w.e.f. 1/7/09 as well. 3. The question of conceding claim for promotion arises only if there is a post available in the higher post to which an employee in question can be considered. In this case, in the absence of any post available, this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of their claims. That apart, according to the respondents, this lack of promotion avenues has also been considered while fixing the age of retirement as well. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for WPC 29209/09 :2 : any direction to the respondents to promote the petitioners. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp