IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23016 of 2009(V) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. D. RADHAMMA, RETD.PROJECT OFFICER (COIR) SIVASAKTHI, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 562. 2. T. SUMANGALA, RETD.PROJECT OFFICER (COIR), `HARISREE', PUTHIYANGADI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 021. BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE MR.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are pensioners. They retired from service on 31.5.2007 and 31.10.2007 respectively, while working as Project Officers in the Industries Department. While they were in service, the petitioners had moved the Director of Industries and Commerce seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Manager. The said requests were rejected. The decision rejecting the request was communicated to the first petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated 9.4.2007 and to the second petitioner by Ext.P4 letter dated 9.8.2007. The petitioners did not challenge Exts.P3 and P4 in time. As per the Special Rules in force, the feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Manager was Assistant Director. The petitioners were not in the feeder category. It was for this reason their request for promotion to the category of Deputy Director/Manager was rejected. 3. Long after the petitioners retired from service, the Government issued Ext.P5 order wherein inter alia it is stipulated that in W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V 2 the absence of qualified hands in the category of Assistant Director, the vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Director/Manager shall be filled up by candidates who have successfully completed their probation in the category of Assistant District Industries Officer, in a phased manner. Thereupon the petitioners again moved the Government seeking promotion. The said requests were rejected and the decision communicated to the second petitioner by Ext.P10 letter dated 16.6.2009 and the first petitioner by Ext.P11 letter dated 30.6.2009. In Exts.P10 and P11 the Government have taken the stand that as the revised orders were issued only on 31.1.2009, the petitioners who retired from service much prior to the introduction of the new rules, cannot claim promotion. Exts.P3, P4, P10 and P11 are under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as a large number of vacancies of Deputy Director/Manager were in existence in the Industries Department, the Director of Industries ought to have considered their request for notional promotion based on Ext.P5 order atleast with reference to the vacancies which were in existence immediately prior to the date on which the petitioners retired from service. In my opinion, the said claim is plainly untenable. The post which the petitioners were holding namely, the post of Project Officer was equated to the post of Assistant District Industries Officer and made the W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V 3 feeder category for promotion to the category of Deputy Director/Manager and that too in the absence of qualified hands in the category of Assistant Director only long after the petitioners' retired from service. In such circumstances the request made by the petitioners was rightly rejected by the Director of Industries. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE ab