IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 137 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32572/2008 Dated 13/11/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- SAJI.T., HEAD OF SECTION (COMPUTER ENGINEERING), NOW WORKING AS PROJECT OFFICER, CURRICULAM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) IN THE POST TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF HEAD OF SECTION, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. A.A.ABDUL NAZAR, HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, SREE RAMA GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, THRIPRAYAR. 5. BINDU.P.S., HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC KALAMASSEDRY. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R4,5 SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY FOR R4,5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A. No.137/2009 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 20th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was the writ petitioner. The respondents herein were the respondents in the Writ Petition. The dispute raised in this Writ Appeal for resolution is the claim of the appellant for promotion to the post of Head of Section in Computer Engineering in preference to respondents 4 and 5. 2. The brief facts of the case are the following: The appellant and respondents 4 and 5 were Lecturers in Computer Engineering. Admittedly, the said respondents were seniors to him. But, the appellant became qualified earlier, for promotion to the post of Head of Section. Taking into account outside experience also, he became qualified on 18.1.1999. The respondents 4 and 5 became qualified respectively on 12.6.1999 and 27.10.1999. The Departmental Promotion Committee (for short “DPC”) which met to prepare the select list for the year WA No.137/2009 - 2 - 2000, included two others in the said list, who were seniors to respondents 4 and 5 and the appellant. The next DPC list was published for the year 2002. In that list, respondents 4 and 5 were ranked above the appellant among the Lecturers in Computer Engineering, who were found suitable for promotion to the post of Head of Section. The said select list is Ext.P9, which was published on 21.4.2003. The appellant filed a representation against the same before the Government on 15.11.2003. The Government forwarded the same to the DPC, which considered and rejected it The appellant was informed of the same by the Government by Ext.P11 communication dated 10.2.2004. After the lapse of three years, on 22.2.2007, the appellant moved the State Information Officer under the Right to Information Act and obtained Exts.P4, P5, P7 and P8 materials concerning promotion to the post of Head of Section. Based on that, he found that though vacancies were available in 1999, which remained unfilled for want of qualified hands, he was not considered for promotion, being the first person who became qualified. So, he filed Ext.P13 petition before the WA No.137/2009 - 3 - Government on 5.10.2007, claiming promotion to the post of Head of Section with effect from 2000. The grievance raised by him in Ext.P13 reads as follows: “The action of the DPC of 27.01.2000, has affected my seniority and prospects for promotion to higher posts. Hence it is submitted that my seniority in the cadre of Head of Section in Computer Engineering may be restored from the date of completing the requirements for promotion as per the Special Rules and include me in the Select List for 2000, for which I am fully qualified.” After filing Ext.P13, the present Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P9 and P11 and also seeking a direction to review Ext.P9 select list. The learned Single Judge noticed that the representation filed by the appellant/writ petitioner against Ext.P9 list was rejected by the Government by Ext.P11 communication dated 10.2.2004. After the lapse of three years, the appellant filed his first representation before the State Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, on 22.02.2007, seeking certain details. Thereafter, Ext.P13 review petition was filed before the Government on 5.10.2007. So, the WA No.137/2009 - 4 - learned Judge found that there is inordinate delay from the part of the appellant to seek redressal of his grievances. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence this appeal. 3. We heard Sri.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Benny Gervasis, learned senior Government Pleader for the official respondents and Sri.N.Reghuraj for respondents 4 and 5. It is not in dispute that the appellant/writ petitioner became qualified in 1999, though, on later dates, respondents 4 and 5 also became qualified. All the three were superseded while the DPC list for 2000 was prepared for promotion to the post of Head of Section in Computer Engineering. The appellant has chosen to challenge that list by filing Ext.P13, only in 2007. We notice that in Ext.P13 he does not have any grievance against Ext.P9 or Ext.P11. In view of the above position, we are of the view that the DPC lists of 2000 and 2002 have gained statutory finality as against the appellant. The attempt now made to reopen those lists is highly belated and cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails WA No.137/2009 - 5 - and it is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. C.T.Ravikumar, Judge. nm.