IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 14519 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PONNAPPAN.C.K,AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KOCHU SANKU,DEPUTY DIRECTOR,DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GUEST HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PERMANENT ADDRESS."NANDANAM", THYKATTUSSERI.P.O,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,STATE SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR,OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SHRI.V.K.AMBUJAKSHAN PILLAI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,DIRECTORATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL FOR R3 SRI.T.ISSAC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.14519 OF 2010 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Deputy Director in the Department of Tourism. He claimed promotion to the post of Joint Director. According to the petitioner, he is qualified and is eligible. It is contended that a vacancy arose on 19.4.2001 and that the DPC is going to be held and the 3rd respondent who is unqualified is going to be considered for promotion. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. On behalf of the 3rd respondent Senior Counsel submitted that the qualifications for the post of Joint Director inter alia requires one year training which can be acquired only by deputation. It is stated that in 2008-2009, while all the candidates in the feeder category of Deputy Director were eligible to be deputed, two senior employees including the 3rd respondent were not relieved in the exigencies of service. It is stated that the petitioner was accordingly deputed for training and that he completed the training. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent was deputed for training in the year 2009-2010 and has WPC.No. 14519/2010 :2 : successfully completed the training. 3. According to the learned Sr. counsel when the vacancy arose apprehending that the 3rd respondent will be excluded from consideration, he filed WP(c).NO.11144/2010 before this court and an interim order was obtained, directing that his case shall also be considered when other cases are taken up for consideration. It is stated that it was pursuant to that direction of this court, when DPC was held his claim was considered and he was included in the select list, which was also published. 4. Evidently, the submission made by the 3rd respondent reveals that he was asserting his eligibility to be considered and obtained an order from this court in WP(c)No.11144/2010. requiring the respondents to consider his case also for promotion. In such circumstances if the petitioner has a case that the 3rd respondent is ineligible, the remedy available to the petitioner is to get himself impleaded in the writ petition filed by the 3rd respondent and seek to get the order passed by this court vacated, rather than filing other writ petition seeking conflicting orders. WPC.No. 14519/2010 :3 : Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders in WP(C).No.11144/2010 and without expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/