IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 29591 of 2009(T) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. D.SHIBUKUMAR, LEGAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. N.SAILENDRAN, LEGAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 3. S.RADHAKRISHNAN, LEGAL ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIEF OFFICE, FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED. 3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 9.12.2009 IN IA. 13942/2009. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SHRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC,KSRTC . ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.14688 PF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.29591/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 12782/2007, 15920/2007 AND 14611/09 DTD. 17.8.2009. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DTD. 17.9.2009 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29.9.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.29591 OF 2009 & 14688 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The relief sought for in these two writ petitions are identical and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners were appointed as Legal Assistants in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. In W.P.(C) No.29591 of 2009, the petitioners are seeking for a direction to consider Exhibits P2 and P3 representations wherein they have requested to consider them for promotion to the post of Deputy Law Officer. The said requests have been made in the light of the common judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.12782/2007 and connected cases, which is produced as Exhibit P1 herein. 3. In W.P.(C) No.14688/2010, the petitioners have sought for a direction not to fill up the vacancy of Deputy Law Officer by way of deputation. Exhibit P1 judgment shows that the challenge against the selection and appointment of the petitioners was repelled by this Court on various grounds. Further it was directed W.P.(C) Nos.29591/09 & 14688/10 2 that the KSRTC may obtain concurrence of PSC for the amendment to the Regulations regarding the inclusion of non- ministerial candidates in the feeder category for Legal Assistants. It was further directed that if that event does not occur within a period of one year from the date of the judgment, the selection of D.Shibu Kumar, N.Silendran and S.Radhakrishnan from among the non-ministerial categories would stand cancelled by the force of the judgment. 4. A detailed interim order has been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.29591/2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment Exhibit P1 in the batch of cases has been reversed in Writ Appeal No.70/2010 and connected cases as per Exhibit P5 judgment produced in W.P.(C) No.14688/2010 along with I.A.No.10903/2010. The Division Bench upheld the selection and appointment of the persons concerned. 5. The Writ Appeals were filed by the petitioners herein as well as by the KSRTC. Therefore, in the light of Exhibit P5 judgment of the Division Bench, the concurrence of the PSC as W.P.(C) Nos.29591/09 & 14688/10 3 directed by the learned Single Judge is no longer required. 6. In that view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioners will have to be treated as regular. It is submitted that the appointments of the petitioners have already been treated as regular. Therefore, what remains is only consideration of their claim for promotion as Deputy Law Officer. Exhibits P2 and P3 are the representations filed by the petitioners in this regard. Therefore, there will be a direction to the KSRTC to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Deputy Law Officer in accordance with the relevant Regulations/ Rules/Office orders and appropriate decision will be communicated to them within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp