IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 OP.No. 21573 of 2002(R) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.SUNANDA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (RETIRED, PLANNING BOARD), T.C. NO.50/1481, KRISHNA PRIYA, NEW GARDEN AVENUE-3, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PLANNING AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (B) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, STATE PLANNING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SR. T.K. SAJEEV THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.36973/2002 IN O.P.NO.21573/2002 R DISMISSED 7/06/2010 SD/- P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 9/01/2001 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRAORDINARY OF 19/01/2001. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNIQUE NO.E1-9365/99/SPB DT. 19/06/2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING DETAILS OF PERMANENT POST (SHOWN OF IRRELEVANT DETAILS). P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1747/2002/SPBDTD. 24/06/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- O.P.No.21573 of 2002 ---------------------------- Dated 7th June, 2010 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner who retired from service on 31.5.2002 is that though two vacancies in the cadre of Joint Director were available in the State Planning Board, she was not promoted to the said cadre notwithstanding the inclusion of her name in Ext.P1 select list. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that two vacancies in the cadre of Joint Director were available in the State Planning Board on 11.8.2000 and therefore as she was included in Ext.P1 select list published on 9.1.2001, she ought to have been promoted to the said cadre before her retirement. 2. The claim made by the petitioner in that regard in a representation dated 10.4.2002 was rejected by the Government by Ext.P3 letter dated 24.6.2002. It is stated that though a vacancy had arisen on 1.2.2001 on the retirement of the incumbent, the said vacancy was filled up by posting Sri.N.Thrivikraman Nair who is senior to the petitioner, on the expiry of the leave granted to him. It is also stated that though on 1.12.2001, another retirement vacancy had arisen, that vacancy was filled up by transferring O.P.No.21573/2002 2 Sri.P.Thulasidharan who is also senior to the petitioner and was attached to M & E Unit of the State Planning Board which was to be wounded up by March, 2002. It is stated that due to non-availability of sufficient posts in the cadre of Joint Director, the petitioner could not be given promotion as Joint Director. I heard Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.K.Sajeev, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The claim made by the petitioner is rested on the plea that two vacancies in the cadre of Joint Director were available to be filled up in the year 2000-2001. The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the category of Joint Director and her name was included in Ext.P1 list that was published on 9.1.2001. However, the petitioner's claim for promotion was denied on the ground that there was no vacancy against which she could be accommodated. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that besides the two vacancies that arose on 1.2.2001 and 1.12.2001 any other vacancy was available. She has no case that anyone junior to her was given appointment as Joint Director. She has also not pleaded or proved that Smt.P.Saraswathy Amma or any of the other persons included in the O.P.No.21573/2002 3 select list for the year 2001 were given appointment as Joint Director before she retired from service. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the original petition. The original petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS