IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 7677 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.SHAJAHAN, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU, AGED 54, MAQBOOD MANZIL, KARUMKUTTY, PARASSALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM (PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT DEPOT ENGINEER, KSRTC, VITHURA). BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. 3. V.P.MANOJ KUMAR, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPOT ENGINEER, KSRTC, KALPETTA. 4. K.RENJITH, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, DEPOT ENGINEER, KSRTC, KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC R4 BY ADV. SRI.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7677/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 28.12.1990 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE MANAGEMENT AND THE UNION OF WORKMEN. P2:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE IST RESPONDENT, DTD. 14.12.07. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.3.1995 IN CMP. 7840/95 IN OP. 4340/95. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.7677/2008-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to promote him to the post of Depot Engineer, strictly adhering to the ratio 1:1 in the cadre based on cadre strength. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Depot Engineer at the time of filing of the writ petition. There is a quota fixed for the promotion to the post of Depot Engineer which is evident from Ext.P1, especially, Clause XIX which provides that “the existing ratio of 1:1 between promotees and direct recruits to the post of Depot Engineer will be maintained”. It is the allegation of the petitioner that without maintaining the ratio, several juniors to the petitioner were given accommodation resulting in denial of due benefits to him. It is averred in paragraph (3) that out of 36 Depot Engineers, 35 are direct recruits. Earlier, some of the aggrieved parties approached this Court by filing O.P.No.4340/1995 wherein Ext.P3 order was passed and later the O.P. was dismissed as infructuous as the petitioners therein were promoted. W.P.(C). No.7677/2008 -:2:- 3. The petitioner specifically points out that respondent Nos.3 and 4 were promoted by Ext.P4 in disregard to the relevant clauses in Ext.P1. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Depot Engineer in August, 2008 and he retired from service on 2009. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that still he has got a claim for notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were accommodated in the post of Depot Engineer in violation of the quota Rule. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Gracy v. State of Kerala [1985 (1) SLR (Ker.) 478]. Accordingly, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to grant promotion retrospectively with full salary and allowances from the back date or at least notional promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted. 6. First respondent has not filed any counter affidavit in this case. In the absence of a counter affidavit, it could not be safely ascertained as to the date on which the petitioner would have been eligible for the promotion. In that view of the matter, a direction as sought for by the petitioner to grant notional promotion from a particular date cannot be given in this writ W.P.(C). No.7677/2008 -:3:- petition. Hence, if the petitioner files an appropriate representation along with a copy of this Judgment before the first respondent, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation after hearing the petitioner and any other affected parties. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms