IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2722 of 2009(Y) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- U.ABDUL HAKEEM, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. U.M. USUFF, SUHAIL MANZIL, NEAR SOBHA THEATRE, VADAKKANCHERRY POST, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV.MR.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI. EAPEN FRANCIS, THE JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), DIRECTORTE OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2722/2009 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE INDICATING THAT THE PETITIONER HAS PASSED MINORITY LANGUAGE TEST IN TAMIL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1 7846/95 DTD. 23/02/06 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1 – 10/07 DTD. 15/05/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D4 – 35581/07 DTD. 5/10/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 7/10/08 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D4/35581/01 DTD. 25/11/08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E8 – 1/07 DTD. 30/11/07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.108/07 DTD. 10/01/07. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1 – 10/07 DTD. 18/1/07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT REGULARIZING PROMOTION OF SRI.ROBINSON. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2 – 100/08 DTD. 28/11/08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2 – 100/08 DTD. 15/12/08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 11/12/07 IN WP(C) NO. 36617/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 29/01/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.2722/2009-Y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the Secretary of Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat. He was promoted as Junior Superintendent at Mala Grama Panchayat as per order dated 13/01/2006. But subsequently, after the petitioner acquired special qualification, which is evidenced as Ext.P1, he claimed linquistic promotion to the post of Special Grade Secretary under Rule 9(d) of Part II K.S. & S.S.R and he was posted in Vadakarepathy Grama Panchayat, Palakkad District as per Ext.P2 order. From there, he was transferred to Kollengode Grama Panchayat as per Ext.P3. While he was working there he was suspended as per Ext.P4. 2. By Ext.P6 dated 25/11/2008, he was reinstated in service, but was demoted as Junior Superintendent. The reason stated for demotion is that he was not regularised in the post of Special Grade Secretary at the time of suspension. 3. The petitioner points out that in similar circumstances, going by Exts.P7 to P9, similarly placed persons have been allowed to continue in the same post, even without regularisation. W.P.(C) No.2722/2009 -:2:- 4. Along with I.A.No.2695/2009, the petitioner has produced Ext.P13, a representation addressed to the first respondent seeking to post him as Special Grade Secretary in any of the Grama Panchayats earmarked for linguistic minorities. The petitioner has referred to various circumstances justifying his claim therein. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the Government to pass orders on Ext.P13. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The petitioner relies upon Ext.P12 judgment which, according to him, is similar to the case pleaded by the petitioner. The petitioner will produce the copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment for compliance. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms