IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 16953 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJI.T, HEAD OF SECTION (COMPUTER ENGINEERING), NOW WORKING AS PORJECT OFFICER, CURRICULAM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECERETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER), IN THE TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF PRINCIPAL, REP. BY ITS CONVENOR, PRINCIPAL SECRERTARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. T.V. SADANANDAN, HEAD OF SECTION (AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING) GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, KALAMASSERY. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.MUHAMOOD T.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.16953/2009-W ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 19th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court seeking mainly for a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation before approving and publishing the Select List of Head of Section for promotion to the post of Principal, that has been prepared by the D.P.C and forwarded to the Government for approval. 2. The dispute herein has arisen like this. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Computer Engineering in the Technical Education Department on the advice of the P.S.C as per Ext.P1 order and, accordingly, he joined duty on 20/09/1995. 3. Ext.P2 is a Select List of Lecturers for promotion to the post of Head of Section in different Departments in the Polytechnics published by the Government. The petitioner is included as Sl.No.3 in Paragraph (H) meant for Computer Engineering Department in the Select List for the year 2002. He was, accordingly, promoted as Head of Section as per Ext.P3 order, dated 17/07/2003. The fourth respondent was appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Automobile Engineering by promotion as per order W.P.(C). No.16953/2009 -:2:- dated 04/09/1997. Thus, he is junior to the petitioner and he was appointed as Head of Section as per order dated 17/07/2003 [Ext.P3(a)]. 4. The petitioner submits that apart from the petitioner and the fourth respondent, M/s.A.A.Abdul Nazar, Bindu P.S and Suresh Kumar J.S who are shown as seniors to the petitioner, also were appointed to the category of Head of Section on the same date. Therefore, it is contended that, while considering the claim for promotion to the category of Principal, if the date of appointment of the Heads of Sections under different Departments borne in the Technical Education Service are the same, then the seniority of the incumbents in the category of Lecturer is taken into account for placement in the Select List. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that D.P.C was convened on 02/06/2009 and they have decided in favour of the fourth respondent and the Select List has already been forwarded to the Government for approval. It is further submitted that the D.P.C has not considered the crucial aspect that the petitioner is senior to the fourth respondent in the post of Lecturer. It is therefore, submitted that he is entitled to be included in the Select List for the post of Principal. Ext.P6 is the representation submitted by the petitioner before the Government for W.P.(C). No.16953/2009 -:3:- consideration of the matter in the light of the principles stated by this Court in the decision reported in Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala and others [1984 KLT 693]. Therein, this Court had held that the Government has got a power to remit a list back to the DPC before approval, in a case of this nature, after finding whether they have committed any mistake or not. 6. Therefore, Ext.P6 will be considered by the Government and appropriate orders will be passed after hearing the petitioner and the fourth respondent before approving and publishing the select list. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms