IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7725 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.MOHANAN, S/O.R.KESAVAN, AGED 55 YEARS, MAYA NIVAS,KAITHIVILA, PEYAD P.O.TRIVANDRUM. (INSPECTOR K.S.R.T.C. PAPPANAMCODE PEPOT) BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV SRI.BABU POTHENCODE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR TRANSPORT BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (OPERATIONS) KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE UNIT OFFICER, PAPPANAMCODE DEPOT.KSRTC, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE REP.BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.V.V.N.NAMBIAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.7725 OF 2010 (M) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Inspector in the KSRTC aspiring for promotion to the post of Assistant Transport Officer. According to the petitioner, he is due to retire on 31.3.2010. It is stated that by Ext.P1 Unit Officers were directed to forward self appraisal and service book of Inspectors like the petitioner for placing before the DPC, in order to consider such officers for promotion to the post of ATO. Petitioner submits that in compliance there of, he submitted his self appraisal to the Unit Officer but however, the Unit Officer did not forward his self appraisal and service book to the first respondent. It is stated that as a result of the default of the Unit Officer, when promotions were effected by Ext.P3, several of his juniors were promoted but however his claim was not considered. It is stated that aggrieved by this he has submitted Ext.P4 to the first respondent and even that representation is not considered. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition is filed. WPC.No. 7725/2010 :2 : 2. Since the petitioner is to retire on 31.3.2010, at this stage, this court will not be justified in directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner and effect promotion before that date. However, in the nature of the grievance that is highlighted, I feel that it is only appropriate that the first respondent should consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner on an expeditious basis and if it is found that his claim for promotion has been overlooked in the circumstances as pointed out by the petitioner, the first respondent should necessarily pass orders remedying the grievance of the petitioner. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, considering the same in the manner as directed above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 7725/2010 :3 :