IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31123 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VARGHESE.A.I., EMPLOYEE NO.502, SENIOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, STORE DEPARTMENT, KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.THE LATE ITTOOP, ALUKKAL HOUSE, MEIKKAD P.O., ANGAMALI, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM-683 589. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.K.N.RAVEENDRAN SRI.K.THAVAMONY SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM. 3. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD., ATHANI, DISTRICT ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 & R2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R1 & R2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th November,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner herein is working as Senior Technical Assistant in the Store Department of the Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd, the 1st respondent herein. 2. Petitioner seeks for a direction to consider his claim for promotion as Asst. Engineer in any of the existing vacancies. It is stated in the writ petition that there are three existing vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineers. 3. Petitioner has stated in detail the procedure for promotion, prescribed under the various settlements. It is his case that going by the seniority list also, he is eligible to be considered for promotion. The relevant seniority list is produced as Ext.P4 herein. 4. Based on the respective position of the various employees in Ext.P4, an interview was conducted. Interview was scheduled to be held on 24.9.2008 at 2 P.M. During the relevant period namely from 10..8.2008 to 12.2.2009, he was in U.S.A to visit his children at Purdue W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 2 University. He left the country after availing half pay leave. The letter inviting him to attend the interview namely Ext.P5 was received by him only on 19.10.2008. The interview was scheduled on 24.9.2008. He came back to India and rejoined duty on 27.2.2009. 5. In the meanwhile, his juniors were promoted and it is in these circumstances petitioner seeks for a direction to consider his claim for promotion in any of the existing vacancies. 6. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit as directed by this Court. It is pointed out that the petitioner was eligible for promotion from 1.6.1991 onwards. The promotion committee had included his name for promotion to the post of Asst. Engineer on 16.12.2003. He was Serial No.3 in the list prepared on 16.12.2003. Persons at Serial No.1 and 2 in that select list were promoted. Even though his name was proposed to be considered, when his turn arrived he gave Ext. R1 (b) letter intimating his unwillingness to accept the promotion. This is of the year 2006. Ext.R1 (a) is the select list prepared on W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 3 16.12.2003 which was in force for a period of three years from the date of its approval by the Board of Directors. 7. He did not take part in the selection for the post of Assistant Engineer held in 2007 as a result of which his his name was not included in the list prepared by the Promotion Committee on 6.7.2007 (Ext. R1 (c)). It is also submitted that even after reporting for duty on 27.2.2009, he had no complaint regarding the interview which was conducted on 24.9.2008. 8. Even though so many candidates were included in the select list, around 11 candidates have been promoted to the post of Asst. Engineer from the select list prepared on the basis of the interview held on 24.9 .2008. 9. With regard to the vacancies now available it is pointed out that in terms of the industrial settlement these vacancies will have to be filled up through Public Service Commission. Accordingly they have been reported already to the PSC as per the ratio of 1:1 provided in the said settlement for filling up the post by way of promotion and by direct recruitment. W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 4 In the light of the above, petitioner is not entitled to succeed in the writ petition . Petitioner was given chances for obtaining promotion in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. Therefore, respondents cannot be blamed for denial of any promotion as such. What remains is the claim for promotion in any of the existing vacancies as pointed out already. Those vacancies have been reported to the PSC. Therefore, the petitioner will have to wait for his turn, whenever vacancies are proposed to be filled up for promotion. In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. T.R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE ma W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No.31123 of 2009 6