IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18306 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.VARGHESE, ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER, CANTEEN STORES DEPARTMENT, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. E.SHIHABUDHEEN, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18306 of 2010 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 is the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioners. The petitioner, being an Assistant Excise Commissioner, was included at Serial No.5 of Ext.P5 list. However, he was not promoted, and the reason was the pendency of Ext.P8 memo of charges. 2. According to the petitioner, enquiry was completed by the Vigilance Tribunal and the report exonerating the petitioner was forwarded to the Government on 03/10/2009. There was no progress in the matter and therefore at that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.9744/10. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dated 30/03/2010 directing that final orders shall be passed in the matter duly adverting to the report of the Vigilance Tribunal. This resulted in Ext.P10 order dated 11/05/2010 exonerating the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submits that since his name was included WP(C) No.18306/2010 -2- in Ext.P5 select list, and the denial of promotion was only on account of the pendency of the Vigilance proceedings, which is concluded by Ext.P10 exonerating the petitioner, he is entitled to be given promotion in view of the provisions contained in Note (iii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR. It is seen that this claim of the petitioner is seen urged before the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P11. Orders have not been passed on Ext.P11 also. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Going by Ext.P10, there is a clear exoneration of the petitioner. If that be so, his claim is liable to be considered applying the provisions of Note (iii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of the KS & SSR referred to above. Therefore, it is directed that the 1st respondent will pass orders on Ext.P11 in the manner as directed above. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg