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. 16456 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.CHANDRABABU, ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD ROADS SECTION, VENNIKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CONVENER (PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT PWD) DEPARTMENT OF PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVIND BABU 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.16456 OF 2010 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. His grievance is that he is not being considered for the post of Executive Engineer. It is stated that DPC was held on 3.2.2010, but however he was not considered for promotion for the reason that a vigilance enquiry was pending. However, counsel points out that by Ext.P8 report, Vigilance have already reported to the Government that nothing is disclosed on investigation for prosecution. Be that as it may, against his exclusion from DPC, he has already filed Ext.P5 appeal, that is pending. 2. Petitioner points out that another person who was also similarly overlooked approached this court by filing WP(c). No.5983/2010 and in that writ petition this court passed Ext.P9 order dated 12.3.2010 directing reviewed DPC and that on that basis reviewed DPC was held and he was recommended to be promoted and was promoted by Ext.P10 order. It is stated that petitioner is entitled to similar treatment. WPC.No. 16456/2010 :2 : 3. If as sated by the petitioner, reason for his exclusion was the vigilance enquiry and if the vigilance enquiry has already been concluded by Ext.P8, there is no reason why the petitioner should be denied the benefit of Ext.P9 order passed by this court in the writ petition filed by one of his colleagues. Having regard to the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing that, the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate decision to convene a review DPC within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this order and consider the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the select list for the year 2009- 2010, in case no disciplinary or criminal proceedings have been initiated or pending against him as on date. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/