IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24680 of 2009(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- C. KUTTAN, SHOW ROOM MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.C.S.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES (C)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR KANNUR-670 001. 3. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR- 670 001. 4. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. KANNUR- 670 001. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI , MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).24680/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered service of the 2nd respondent as a show room manager on 24.10.1985 and has been continuing in the said post without further promotion. Ext.P1 recruitment rules applicable to the 2nd respondent shows that the post of show room manager is also in the feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Manager. There are now vacancies in the post of Assistant Regional Manager lying vacant. If promotion is to be effected, the petitioner is most likely to be promoted since he is the senior most in the category of show room manager currently eligible for being considered for promotion. His request for promotion has not been accepted and hence the writ petition. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4. The stand taken is that though no doubt Ext.P1 promotion rules are currently in force, it seems that a promotion policy in respect of 26 out of 37 categories has not been enforced so far. A proposal made by the 2nd respondent has been pending before the Government, since 1996. It W.P.(C).24680/09 2 seems that in respect of the posts above that of Assistant Regional Manager, a promotion policy requires concurrence of the PSC and hence the delay. 3. It is upto the Government to take a decision in this regard. But the petitioner himself is due to retire on 28.2.2010. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the Company considers the question of promoting the petitioner at least on a provisional basis, within a time frame. A similar course of action was adopted in Ext.P6. 4. In the result, the 2nd respondent shall consider the petitioner's request for promotion to the post of Assistant Regional Manager, as per the Rules currently in force, if necessary on a provisional basis, and take a decision within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs