IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 37746 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- B.HARILAL, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,MAINTENANCE MECHANIC, MACHINE MAINTENANCE CELL, GOVERNMENT ITI,CHAKA, TRIVANDRUM,RESIDING AT 'USHAMANGALAM',MCRA 18, T.C.NO 1/795-5,CHALAKUZHY ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE.PO TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TRAINING, INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.RAMACHANDRAN, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING, DIRECTORATE, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM. 5. V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, GROUP INSTRUCTOR, ITI, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. L.SURESH BABU, GROUP INSTRUCTOR, ITI WOMEN, KOZHIKODE. 7. G.AJAYAKUMAR, GROUP INSTRUCTOR, ITI, KAYYOOR, KANNUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. -------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.37746 of 2008-R --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is stated to be working as Maintenance Mechanic in the Government ITI at Thiruvananthapuram. His grievance is that the respondents are refusing to promote him to the post of Group Instructor though he is eligible for promotion. His further grievance is that his juniors are being promoted overlooking his seniority and eligibility. 2. The prayers in the Writ Petition are extracted hereunder: ''i) To call for the records relating to P1 to P15 and to quash P10, being illegal and arbitrary and is against P4 rules. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to remove the entry of reverted in P11 and P13 seniority lists and to direct the respondents to revise P15 promotion order granting due promotion to the petitioner in the degree holders quota.” 3. I do not propose to deal with the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition in support of his claim for promotion and also his grievance with regard to the provisional as well as final seniority list at this stage, for reasons to be stated hereunder. 4. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has preferred Ext.P14 statutory appeal against Ext.P13 final seniority list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no decision has been taken by W.P(C) No.37746 of 2008-R : 2 : the authority on Ext.P14. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner that he had also raised objection to Ext.P11 provisional seniority list. Ext.P12 is stated to be the statement of objections filed by the petitioner against Ext.P11. Petitioner takes exception to the following entry made in column 9 in Ext.P11 against his name (Sl.No.786): “Reverted to J.I for not undergoing CTI training” 6. It has to be noticed that Ext.P10 order of reversion was passed reverting the petitioner as Junior Instructor way back in December 2003. Admittedly, Ext.P10 was not challenged. According to the petitioner Ext.P4 was governing the field at the time when he had been reverted as per order in Ext.P10. It may also be noticed that Ext.P11 provisional seniority list was published after Ext.P10. Petitioner states that he has submitted Ext.P12 objection against P11. Anyhow Ext.P13 final seniority list was also published thereafter. 7. As mentioned earlier petitioner had preferred Ext.P14 against Ext.P13 final seniority list in which also the same entry as made in Ext.P11 is incorporated. Though it is contended by the petitioner that his juniors are likely to be promoted on the strength of Ext.P15 order, I am not satisfied that the question of correctness or otherwise of the promotion of his so called juniors can be considered at W.P(C) No.37746 of 2008-R : 3 : this stage. The prayer for revision of Ext.P15 order of promotion is totally misconceived, in the facts and circumstances of this case. The grievance of the petitioner has to be necessarily addressed by the appellate authority. 8. In that view of the matter I am satisfied that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1/appellate authority to pass appropriate orders on Exts.P12 and P14 strictly on their merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to mention, the petitioner and all others who are likely to be affected by any orders that may be issued by respondent No.1 shall be given an opportunity of being heard before any such decision is taken in the matter. ab A.K.BASHEER JUDGE