IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6200 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAKUMARAN P.V., EMPLOYEE I.D.2281, SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3. RAGHAVAN C.K., SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY, SULTHAN BATHERY - 673 592. 4. ASHOK.K., SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY, KASARAGOD - 671121. 5. AMBUJAKSHAN K, SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT, IDUKKI - 685603. 6. ACHAMMA P.S., SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY, THODUPUZHA - 685584. 7. RADHAKRISHNAN.S., SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE-SURVEY, KAZHAKKOOTTAM - 695582. 8. BHARATHAN P.C., SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, A.L.C.DEVIKULAM - 685613. ADV.MR. ANTONY MUKKATH - GOVT. PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6200 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Superintendent in the Department of Survey and Land Records. He belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. He was promoted as Superintendent from the post of Head Surveyor in 2009 only after he passed the Head Surveyors test, which was an obligatory test for such promotion. According to the petitioner, even though he had not passed the obligatory test earlier he should have been granted the benefit of Rule 13A of the KS & SSR for such promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed persons had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P1 judgment, by which this Court had granted such benefit to the petitioners in that judgment, pursuant to which by Ext.P2, the Government had promoted the petitioners in that judgment as Superintendents assigning them the date of promotion as 7.7.2004. The petitioner contends that W.P.(C)No.6200/11 2 respondents 3 to 8 are juniors to the petitioner and they have been given the date of 7.7.2004 for such promotion whereas the petitioner's date of promotion is only 16.11.2009. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation in this matter. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Superintendent, survey and Land Records w.e.f the date of earlier to 7/4/2004 and grant him all consequential benefits including pay fixation and seniority. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to take up and dispose of Exhibit P-3 forthwith” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. I am of opinion that the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. The petitioners in Ext.P1 judgment approached this Court in 2004 and obtained Ext.P1 judgment on 12.5.2006. The Government passed Ext.P2 order on 23.9.2008. The petitioner did not wake up even thereafter. Admittedly the petitioner was promoted on 16.11.2009. Then also, the petitioner did not choose to seek his date of promotion as 7.7.2004. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation only on 31.1.2011. Therefore the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches at every stage. Even otherwise, even if the petitioner had been given the benefit of W.P.(C)No.6200/11 3 Rules 13A and 13AA, such promotion would be subject to acquisition of the qualification within the period prescribed. That also the petitioner had not done since he obtained the obligatory qualification only in 2009. If that be so, even if he had been promoted, he would have been reverted after the period prescribed in the rules. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.6200/11 4 W.P.(C)No.6200/11 5