IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 18148 of 2011(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.P.SINDHU,VILLAGE OFFICER, KARAKUNNU.P.O, MALAPPURAM (DIST). BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTELD BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18148/2011-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE STATE WISE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF UDC/SVO. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF STATE WISE REVISED PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF UDC/SVO PUBLISHED ALONG WITH ORDER DTD. 11/04/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/12/2010. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 14/02/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST ALONG WITH ORDER DTD. 16/06/2011. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/06/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.18148 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Village Officer. Her grievance is with respect to the action on the part of the respondents in overlooking her seniority in the matter of promotion to the post of Junior Superintendent/Deputy Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, she has been superseded in the matter of promotion and many of her juniors were given promotion against the said post. In the said circumstances, raising grievances against the supersession, the petitioner has submitted Exts.P3, P4 and P6 representations before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the receipt of the said representations, the second respondent is not taking any action thereon to redress her grievances. 2.Considering the fact that aggrieved by the alleged supersession, the petitioner has already taken up the matter before the second respondent through Exts.P3, P4 and P6 representations, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) NO.18148/2011 2 this Writ Petition as also in Exts.P3, P4 and P6, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P3, P4 and P6 representations and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioner and also to persons who are likely to be affected in case of issuance of an order in favour of the petitioner. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.18148/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.18148/2011 4