IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 OP.No. 21531 of 2001(L) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T. ALEEMU, SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, THRISSUR-1. 2. P. RAJAGOPAL, OFFICE MANAGER, KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, POONKUNNAN, THRISSUR. 3. K.N. SIVAPRAKASH, SPECIAL GRADE ASSISTANT, K.F.W.F.B REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 4. P.M. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN, SPECIAL GRADE ASSISTANT, K.F.W.F.B. HEAD OFFICE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR. ADDL. R2 TO R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 1-10-2001 INO C.M.P.44722/2001. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SRI.N.SUGATHAN FOR R2TO4 SRI.ASOK M.CHARIYAN, SC, KFWFB FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 21531/2001. ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 27-11-1986. EXT.P2 ORDER IN C.M.P.1573/97 IN W.A.662/93. EXT.P3 JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 684/93. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 1-4-1991. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. 8-10-1990. EXT.P6 DO. DT. 1-2-2001. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 18-6-2001. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a) EXTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS DT. 5-3-1991. EXT.R2(b) ORDER DT. 1-4-1991. EXT.R2(c) ORDER DT. 23-11-1995 EXT.R2(d) ORDER DT. 1-11-1999. EXT.R2(e) ORDER DT. 10-10-2001. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 21531 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th January, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the Fishermen's Welfare Fund Bord by Ext. P1 order dated 27-11-1986. He passed M.O.P Test in October, 1987 and Account Test (Lower) in June, 1990. According to the petitioner, on passing of the above tests, the petitioner became entitled to be promoted as Senior Assistant in accordance with the draft regulations for promotion framed by the Board. However, he was not considered for such promotion. In the meantime, some other employees of the Board filed O.P.No. 14512/1992, wherein a learned Judge directed the Board to follow the draft regulation for making promotion. That judgment was challenged in W.A.Nos. 662 & 684 of 1993. Originally, in those writ appeals, there was an interim order to the effect that the Board may fill up the post of Senor Assistant provisionally and the inter se seniority between the candidates so promoted shall be decided in the writ appeals. Ultimately, the writ appeal were disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment as follows: “Both the writ appeals are disposed of with the following directions: The inter se seniority of respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No. 662 of 1993 shall be determined on the basis of Regulation which is stated to have been approved by the Board and pending approval of the State Government. The seniority shall be in respect of junior Assistant's cadre. This order is being passed taking into account the fact that the respondents have now been promoted as Senior Assistants.” That was on 26-10-1999. In the meanwhile, respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as Senior Assistants with effect from 1-1-1991 subject to the condition that they should acquire the test question of pass in account test (lower) within two years. The 4th respondent was also promoted on 1-7-1991. The petitioner claims to have earlier filed Ext. O.P.. No. 21531/2001. -: 2 :- P5 representation on 8-10-1990 seeking promotion as Senior Assistant. But, he did not follow it up. Later, the petitioner filed Ext. P6 representation on 1-2-2001. Petitioner's representation was rejected by Ext. P7. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P7. 2. According to the petitioner, when this Court directed the Board to make promotions in accordance with the draft regulations, there was no justification for the Board to make promotions otherwise. According to the petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that respondents 2 to 4 were seniors to the petitioner, the petitioner having obtained the necessary test qualifications in October, 1987 and June, 1990, he should have been preferred for promotion in preference to respondents 2 to 4. Regarding the delay in challenging the promotions given to respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner would contend that since all promotions were made provisional and subject to approval of the regulations, there is no delay in approaching this Court. 3. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit disputing the contentions of the petitioner. According to them, as per Ext. R2 (a) itself, two years' time was provided for obtaining test qualification in accordance with which only respondents 2 to 4 were given promotion. Further, they would contend that respondents 2 to 4 having been promoted as early as in 1991, the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in so far as the representation itself was filed 10 years later, i.e in 2001. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am of opinion that the petitioner should fail in the original petition on the ground of delay and laches. Admittedly, respondents 2 to 4 were promoted as early as in 1991. Although the petitioner had earlier filed a representation in 1990, after the promotion of O.P.. No. 21531/2001. -: 3 :- respondents 2 to 4 in 1991, the petitioner did not challenge the same . As is clear from Ext. P4, respondents 2 and 3 were promoted as early as in 1991. The petitioner has not challenged the promotion given to the 4th respondent at all. The first representation stated to have been filed by the petitioner was only Ext. P6 filed in 2001. From a reading of Ext. P4, it is clear that the same was not provisional at all. In any event, from Ext. P3 judgment dated 26-10-1999, it is clear that the Regulations were approved prior to that. The petitioner did not challenge the promotions of respondents 2 to 4 within a reasonable time thereafter also. It is also pertinent to note that even though he was aware that other employees have challenged similar promotions which were pending before this Court, the petitioner did not challenge the promotions. Further, as is clear from Ext. R2(a), respondents 2 to 4 were entitled to two years' time to obtain the test qualifications. That being so, both on the ground of delay and on merits, the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/