IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 2138 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31048/2005 Dated 17/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- E.G.SUSANTHAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.E.S.GOPALAN, JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER (ELECTRICAL) ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION NO.2 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TRICHUR RESIDING AT: EASWARAMANGALATH HOUSE, P.O.PADIYUR, TRICHUR - 680 695. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, TRICHUR. ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 2138 of 2008 --------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair , J. The appellant is an employee under the BSNL. He was included in the panel for the post of Junior Telecom Officer. While so, he was temporarily promoted as Junior Engineer (Electrical). Claiming promotion as Junior Telecom Officer, notwithstanding his posting as Junior Engineer (Electrical), the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to accept his option to come over to the post of Junior Telecom Officer, as and when his turn arises. But simultaneously certain directions adverse to the appellant were also issued by the learned Single Judge. In that context, the writ appeal was filed. When the writ appeal was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant prayed for permitting him to withdraw the writ petition itself so that he can seek the avenues of promotion available to him at present. 2. We heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the W.A. No.2138 of 2008 2 respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case, we think that the prayer of the appellant should be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vps