IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 18283 of 2004(B) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- S.PRAKASH, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RAM MOHAM PALACE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031. BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, RAM MOHAM PALACE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 031. 2. SMT.JANCY MATHEW, COURT FEE EXAMINER, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031. R1 BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18283/2004 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER NO.A2-17131/96(3) DTD. 25/06/1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.A5-55321/2003 DTD. 12/03/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF SUBMISSION PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM NO.A5-55321/2003 (2) DTD. 24/05/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 1ST RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 18/04/2001 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A5-24560/2001 DTD. 23/06/2001 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE HIGH COURT. EXT.R1(C): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 16/05/1991 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(D): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 6/02/2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) No.18283 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Exts.P2 and P4. He seeks a direction to the first respondent to recognise and implement the legitimate right of the petitioner in preference to the second respondent and promote him as Court Fee Examiner on the date on which the second respondent was promoted as Court Fee Examiner and to grant all accrued service benefits. 2. Petitioner is working as Selection Grade Assistant in the office of the first respondent. He has been promoted as Selection Grade Assistant vide Ext.P1 dated 25.6.1996. He attained 50 years in October, 2000 and thus obtained permanent exemption from acquiring the test qualification. It is submitted that to the best of knowledge of the petitioner, there is no adverse remarks in his confidential report and there is no room for any complaint from any quarter and thus he is eligible to be promoted as Court Fee Examiner in October, 2000. Petitioner submitted representation. He was informed that his request will be considered when his proper turn arises. However, the second respondent came to be promoted. Petitioner submitted another representation. This is rejected by Ext.P2. Thereupon he submitted Ext.P3 before the Honourable Chief Justice for review. But that WPC.18283/2004. 2 came to be rejected vide Ext.P4 stating that there are no sufficient reasons to review the promotion order issued. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent inter alia stating as follows: Petitioner's turn for promotion as Court Fee Examiner arose in December, 2003. He was included in the panel of candidates. The post of Court Fee Examiner as per Rule 16(a) is a selection post, and the selection post has to be made on the basis of merit and ability. For evaluating merit and ability, the Honourable Chief Justice has to consider the service records and annual confidential reports. So it was decided to promote the second respondent in the fifth vacancy on such evaluation. In paragraph 9 reference is made to the adverse remarks entered in the Confidential Report of the petitioner during the years 1990 and 2003. Ext.R1(d) is produced as evidence to show the communication of the adverse remarks to the petitioner. Ext.R1(d) is dated 6.2.2004. It is stated that the petitioner was late for 34 days till 31.7.2004 and he had already forfeited 8 days' casual leave on that account and steps are taken to forfeit three more days casual leave. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Easwaran and learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. WPC.18283/2004. 3 5. The post for which the petitioner aspires is admittedly a selection post. The merit is evaluated on the basis of the entries in the confidential report. Unlike what is stated by the petitioner, it is clear that there were adverse entries against the petitioner and what is more the adverse entries were also communicated to the petitioner. On an evaluation of the records, which contain adverse remarks against the petitioner, if the petitioner is superseded and his junior was promoted, I do not think that the petitioner has any legal grievance. In such circumstances, the writ petition is found to be without any basis and it is dismissed. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb