IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12245 of 2010(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.ASHOK KUMAR, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF FISHERIES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PONNANI NAGAR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 583. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD SRI.P.MURALEEDHARA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DPC (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT), REPRESENTED BY CONVENER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.12245 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is Assistant Registrar of Fisheries, aspiring promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries. Vacancy in the higher post arose on 31/03/2010. Departmental Promotion Committee was convened on 29/03/2010. Complaining that though his case was considered, for no valid reason his junior is going to be promoted, this writ petition was filed. 2. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been filed. It is stated that though the name of the petitioner along with three others were considered by the DPC, it was decided not to recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries on the ground that the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kozhikkode vide Annexure R1(a) letter reported that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner on allegation of financial irregularities. It is stated that the proceedings are pending and it is because of the pendency of the proceedings, WP(C) No.12245/2010 -2- his junior Smt.K.K.Sulochana was considered and recommended for promotion. 3. Even if the averments in the statement are accepted, fact remains that even during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, an Officer is eligible to be considered for promotion and in such a case, what is to be done is to adopt sealed cover procedure. In this case, the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent discloses that such a course of action was not adopted. Therefore, necessarily, it calls for convening of review DPC. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to convene a review DPC and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion adopting the sealed cover procedure in his case. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. At the same time, disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which was the reason stated for the petitioner's supersession, also has to be finalised. Going by the statement, as memo of charges was served on the petitioner on 15/01/2008, necessarily, the proceedings has to be expedited. WP(C) No.12245/2010 -3- Taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his explanation to the memo of charges has already been filed, it is directed that the 4th respondent shall take steps for expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and that the same shall be concluded, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 4 for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.