IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY,2008/ 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 17488 of 2006(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- K.K.SYAM, TRADESMAN (PLUMBING), HYDROLICS LAB, MECHANICAL DEPARTMENT, S.N.POLYTECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, (POLY TECHNIC WING) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR (P.S.), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, S.N. POLYTECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, S.N.POLY TECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. BIJU.S., TRADESMAN (ELECTRICAL), ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT, S.N.POLY TECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 7. MINI B.T., TRADESMAN (ELECTRONICS). ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT, S.N.POLY TECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 8. ANEESH SASIDHARAN, TRDESMAN (MESANRY), CIVIL DEPARTMENT, S.N. POLY TECHNIC, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, S.N.TRUST GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2007 , THE COURT ON 14/2/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DT. 19/5/97. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF GOVT. ORDER DT. 21/12/98. EXT.P3: DO. DT. 31/5/2000. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY SENIOR JT.DIRECTOR DT. 19/2/2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN OP.22820/2001 DT. 6/2/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF JUDGENT IN WA.623/2004 DT. 6/2/2004. EXT.P7: COPY OF ORDER DT. 25/3/2004 IN SLP.17405/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R6(A): COPY OF NATIONAL TRADE CERTIFICATE DT. 19/6/97. EXT.R6(B): TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF R7 DT.10/7/1987. EXT.R6(C): DO. OF R6 DT.19/5/97. EXT.R6(D): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 30/11/1963. EXT.R6(E): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 16/1/86. EXT.R6(F): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 21/12/99. EXT.R6(G): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 19/5/2006. EWT.R6(H): DO. DT. 26/6/2006. EXT.R6(i): DO. DT. 21/7/06. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P (C) No. 17488 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008. Judgment Petitioner is stated to be working as Tradesman (Plumbing) in the Hydrolic Lab under the Mechanical Department in S.N.Polytechnic, Kottiyam under the management of respondent No.4. He joined the service on May 19, 1997, as could be seen from Ext.P1 order of appointment. Petitioner has passed SSLC and ITI (Plumbing) examinations. It is not in dispute that the next promotion post available to the petitioner is that of Trade Instructor. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that the Directorate of Technical Education had sanctioned 10 posts of Trade Instructors in S.N.Polytechnic, Kottiyam where the petitioner is now working. Ext.P4 is stated to be the true photocopy of the order issued by respondent No.3 in this regard. It is seen from Ext.P4 that the 10 posts of Trade Instructor which were sanctioned in petitioner's institution were to be distributed as follows: WP.17488/06 2 General Workshop : 4 Civil : 2 Mechanical : 2 Electrical : 2 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied promotion to the post of Trade Instructor in the Hydrolic Lab coming under the Mechanical Department without any justifiable reasons. The primary prayer in the Writ Petition is for a declaration that petitioner is entitled to be promoted in preference to respondent Nos. 6 to 8 in the vacancy of Trade Instructor which arose in June 2006. 4. Respondents 6 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit controverting the contentions raised by the petitioner and also asserting that his claim for promotion is wholly untenable and totally misconceived. It is further contended by the respondents that they had already been promoted as Trade Instructors in May and July respectively. However in view of the interim order passed by this Court they have not been paid salary and other benefits attached to the promotion post. The Department has not approved their promotion also. WP.17488/06 3 5. In the statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the management, it is contended that petitioner has not been given promotion since his turn has not yet arisen. Respondents 6 to 8 were given promotion since they are senior to the petitioner. It is further contended very vaguely that the 10 sanctioned posts of Trade Instructor have already been filled up in accordance within the relevant rules and also on the basis of seniority. 6. The counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 does not throw much light into the dispute on hand. However it is contended that promotion to the post of Trade Instructor will be made reckoning the seniority of Tradesman in the branches concerned. But it is seen admitted that the trade 'plumbing' is included in the Mechanical Engineering category in terms of G.O (Rt) 638/94/H.Edn dated 6/4/1994. It is also stated that the proposal for promotion of the petitioner had not been received in the Directorate so far. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings and other materials available on record, I am of the view that the issues involved fall primarily in the realm of disputed questions of fact. It is true that various Government Orders, WP.17488/06 4 particularly Exts. P2, P3 and P4 will definitely have a bearing on the issue that has come up for consideration. Respondents 6 to 8 have also pressed into service several orders of the Government in support of the contentions raised by them. As mentioned earlier, the stand taken by the management is totally vague and equivocal. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances I am of the view that the imbroglio has to be resolved by respondent No.2. 8. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to take a decision in the matter, keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties. It will be open to the petitioner to submit a detailed statement before respondent No.2 highlighting his grievances and contentions. It will be open to respondents 6 to 8 also to file such a statement projecting their case. The management shall also place the entire data with regard to the service particulars and other relevant details in respect of the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 before respondent No.2 which may be necessary for a comprehensive decision in the matter. Parties shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard by respondent No.2 before any decision is taken in the matter. They shall submit their respective statements before respondent WP.17488/06 5 No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with his statement before respondent No.2 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in which event respondent No.2 shall take a decision in the matter within 4 months from the date of receipt thereof. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.