IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9119 of 2009(H) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MADHAVANKUTTY E.V., AGED 49 YEARS, GARDENER, KANNUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, S/O.KORAN NAIR, RESIDING AT ETTIYAT VEEDU, VELLAVU, P.O.KUTTERI. BY MR.M.V.AMARESAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DIRECTOR, TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL GOVT. ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KANNUR. MR. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9119 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Gardener in the 2nd respondent college. He is an Ex-serviceman. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was appointed as a part time Sweeper on 12.09.1996 under the 1st respondent through Employment Exchange. The petitioner has got a further case that he was promoted as full time Sweeper on 21.02.2005 and posted in Central Polytechnic College, Thiruvananthapuram, and thereafter the petitioner had worked in the 2nd respondent college from 21.02.2005 to 31.05.2007. Exhibit P1 is the order by which the petitioner was promoted to the post of Gardener. 2. The petitioner contends that the post of Sergeant is a promotion post going by Exhibit P2. It is also stated that he is eligible to be appointed as Sergeant as he possesses the required qualification. W.P.(C) No.9119/2009 2 3. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for appropriate orders to grant promotion to the post of Sergeant as the representation said to have been forwarded by the superior officer as per Exhibit P4 was not answered. 4. In the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent as directed by this Court, it is averred that a circular was issued from the office of the 1st respondent for filling up the vacant posts of Sergeant as per office Circular dated 13.12.2004. Accordingly, ten applications were received except the application of the petitioner. The last date fixed for the receipt of the application was on or before 01.01.2005. The petitioner submitted his application through the Principal, Central Polytechnic College, Thiruvananthapuram only on 16.03.2005. But by this time, the ranked list of Sergeant was available with Public Service Commission, since the first method of appointment is by Direct Recruitment. The respondent ie. Director of Technical Education sought clarification from the Government for filling up the post by the second method. Since valid rank list of Sergeant was available at Public Service Commission, the respondent reported W.P.(C) No.9119/2009 3 the vacancies to fill up the posts as per the first method of appointment. Going by the averments in the statement, the first method of appointment is through Public Service Commission. Only if the first method fails, then only a person like the petitioner can be considered for promotion. Since there is a valid rank list published by the Public Service Commission, the request for promotion made by the petitioner at this stage cannot be accepted. If, in any case, the second method is resorted to and due intimation is given to the eligible candidates as per any circular issued at a later point of time, the petitioner will also be eligible to apply for the same. The petitioner will be free to raise his claim before the first respondent by an appropriate representation. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp