IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11321 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.SANTHOSH NAIR,CIRLCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ETTUMANOOR, RESIDING AT SREE PADMAM, MANAYILKULANGRA,THIRUMULLAVARAM (PO),KOLLAM-12. 2. M.IQBAL,CIRLCE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE TRAINING COLLEGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT ROSE MAHAL,VAKKANADU(PO), KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI. RAFEEK.V.K RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TO GOVERNMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PROMOTIONAL TO THE POST OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11321 of 2010 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are presently working as Circle Inspectors of Police. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is evident from Exts.P10 and P11 that the exclusion of the petitioners from the select list was only on account of pendency of a Non Oral Enquiry. The contention of the petitioners is that in view of the provisions under Note 1 to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of KS & SSR, the pendency of a Non Oral Enquiry should not have been taken as a reason for superseding the petitioners. It is evident from Exts.P10 and P11 that in spite of the specific provisions under Note 1 to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of KS & SSR, the claim of the petitioners for inclusion in the select list was not considered in accordance with the provisions. However, there is a statutory remedy for a person who has not been included in a select list in such circumstances. Availing the said remedy, the petitioners have already submitted Exts.P8 and P9 representations. Those are WPC.11321/2010 : 2 : statutory in nature. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Exts.P8 and P9 expeditiously, taking note of the provisions of law referred above and take appropriate steps expeditiously. It is made clear that after taking a decision on the representations, the 3rd respondent shall take appropriate follow up action in terms of the relevant provisions expeditiously. Whole exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge