IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 36441 of 2003(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JESSY JOSEPH, AGED 43 YEARS, L.D.TYPIST,ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE, EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.G.UNIVERSITY, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY OFFICE, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 5. MANAGER, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNY. 6. PRINCIPAL, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE, RANNY. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI BIJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 TO R3 ADV.SHRI V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.36441/03 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COY OF PROMOTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.01 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F3/5762/02/COLL.EDN.DEPT.DATED 18.11.2002. RESPONDENTS' EXT: EXT.R3(A): TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTT.E1/69704/95 DATED 12.10.95 TRUE COPY C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.36441 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P2 whereby her promotion as a Lower Division Typist in St.Thomas College, Ranni was declined to be approved by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Last Grade Sweeper in the St.Thomas College, Ranni, with effect from 19.1.1995 and that appointment was approved. Later, in the vacancy occurred on the retirement by superannuation of one Saramma Abraham, a Senior Grade Typist attached to that College, the petitioner was promoted as per Exhibit P1. In accordance with the provisions under law, the order of appointment was forwarded for the approval of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent as per Exhibit P2 order declined to approve the promotion of the petitioner to the said post on the ground that going by the student strength of that College, there can only be one post of Typist and in W.P.(C)No.36441/03 -2- that post a regular incumbent is working. 3. The contention of the petitioner to assail Exhibit P2 is that there is no bar against appointment or promotion on the ground that student strength is less than 1000. Therefore, she is qualified for promotion to the post of L.D.Typist and therefore the order in Exhibit P1 is perfectly legal. Yet another contention was taken to assail Exhibit P1 that she was arbitrarily discriminated in the matter of approval of promotion, by the respondents, inasmuch as the promotion of certain others, whose names are mentioned in Ground D, were approved by the 2nd respondent. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit on his own behalf and also on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit it is stated that during the verification of the proposal put forth by the 5th respondent, some clarifications were called for and in response to the same, the Principal of the concerned College as per its letter dated 5.6.2002 informed that student strength of the College is less than 1000. It is further stated that the Principal admitted the fact that going by the student strength, the College is eligible W.P.(C)No.36441/03 -3- only for one post of Typist and expressed regret for the submission of a wrong proposal. In paragraph 6 of the said counter affidavit, it is also specifically averred that going by the student strength of the said College and work load, the College is eligible for only one post of Typist and that one Typist is already working in the College. These factual aspects remain uncontroverted. 5. Indisputably, the sanctioning of a post can only be on the basis of the student strength and work load of the concerned College. Going by the admitted relevant facts for the said purpose, the concerned College is eligible for only one post of Typist and that one Typist is already working in the College. As noticed hereinbefore, respondents 5 and 6 also did not dispute this position. It be so, it cannot be said that Exhibit P2 was passed without adverting to the facts and that it is illegal. 6. The other contention of the petitioner that in respect of certain others, whose names have been specifically mentioned in the Writ Petition, their promotions were approved by the 2nd respondent. I am not inclined to interfere with Exhibit P2 on that W.P.(C)No.36441/03 -4- ground. Firstly, the details regarding their appointments rather promotions are not available. Even if it is taken that their promotions have been approved by the 2nd respondent, that cannot clothe this Court with the jurisdiction to compel the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner in the factual background expatiated earlier. I do not find any illegality in Exhibit P2. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. dsn