IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18212 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- M.L.JACOB, U.D.CLERK, CHRIST COLLEGE IRINJALAKKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.B.KAIMAL (SR.) ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NAIR ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL ADV. SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE MANAGER, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 18212 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 18th June, 2008 J U D G M E N T It is stated in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was initially appointed in the last grade service by the third respondent on 23.12.1987. A vacancy of L.D. Clerk arose on 01.12.1998. According to the petitioner, he was the seniormost last grade employee eligible for promotion as L.D. Clerk and accordingly, he was promoted as L.D. Clerk on 01.12.1998. Thereafter, a vacancy of U.D. Clerk arose on 01.03.2000 and the third respondent promoted one A.O. Xavier in the vacancy which arose on 01.03.2000, it is stated. It is also stated that A.O.Xavier was an L.D. Typist and the third respondent promoted him as L.D. Clerk. According to the petitioner, as per the Calicut University Statutes in force, there was no provision for appointing an L.D. Typist as L.D. Clerk. The appointment of A.O. Xavier was not approved. It is further stated that after the amendment of the Calicut University Statutes, the appointment of A.O. Xavier was approved in the category of L.D.Clerk with effect from 05.03.2002. It is contended by the petitioner that he became an L.D. Clerk on 01.12.1998 while Xavier became an L.D. Clerk only on 05.03.2002 and therefore he is senior to A.O. Xavier. 2. Challenging the action of the third respondent in promoting A.O.Xavier against the vacancy of U.D.Clerk, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 39467 of 2003. That Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation. As per Ext. P1, the second respondent held that the petitioner is the seniormost person entitled to be promoted as U.D.Clerk. A.O. Xavier challenged that order in W.P.(C) No. 13988 of 2004 . 3. Pending W.P.(C) 13988 of 2004, this Court passed Ext.P2 interim order W.P.(C) No. 18212 OF 2008 2 directing the Manager to consider the claim of the petitioner herein for promotion as U.D.Clerk in the vacancy which arose on 30.09.2000. The Manager promoted the petitioner as U.D.Clerk. The proposal for approval of appointment of the petitioner was forwarded by the Principal of the College to the second respondent as per Ext. P4. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext. P4 is not considered by the second respondent. 4. In the manner in which I propose to dispose of the Writ Petition, it is not necessary to issue notice to the third respondent-Manager. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. Ext. P4 is pending disposal before the second respondent. The second respondent has to dispose of Ext. P4 in accordance with law. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner is to direct the second respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 in accordance with law. The prayer made by the petitioner is just and reasonable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent – Director of Collegiate Education to consider and dispose of Ext. P4 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall send a copy of the judgment to the 3rd respondent by registered post without delay and shall produce proof of the same before the second respondent. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk