IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 977 of 2010(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUGATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MAMMAN, POOVALI HOUSE, PADIYOOR, THRISSUR NOW WORKING AS JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SOCIAL FOREST DIVISION, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (ADMINISTRATION), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 977 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Junior Superintendent under the Social Forestry Division, Idukki in the Department of Forest and Wild Life. According to him, he is rank No.27 in Ext.P1 seniority list and on account of the fact that all the other persons, except one, have either retired or promoted, for all practical purposes, he holds rank No.2 in the said list. Two vacancies in the post of Senior Superintendent arose in the Department in July, 2009. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 charge memo containing certain allegations. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the light of the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, initiated as per Ext.P2, his name would not be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent. 2. Going by Note(i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, there cannot be any basis for such an apprehension. The said provision contemplates the action to be taken in W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010 2 such a situation. There is no reason to believe that the competent authorities would not follow the procedures prescribed in the said Rules. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is premature and it is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010 JUDGMENT 27th January, 2010