IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1580 of 2011 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34874/2010 Dated 25/05/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- T.A JOSEPH, DRIVER,2513,AGED 54 YEARS, S/O THE LATE ANTONY, STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KAVALAM,ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688 506 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 2. DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 688 001 3. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT(ADMINISTRATION) STATE WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, ALAPPUZHA PIN 688 001 R1 BY SRI.JAMES KADAVAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1580 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant before this Court. The challenge raised in the writ petition was that the promotion given to the appellant as 'Boat Driver' in the year 2005 was not in accordance with the ratio 1:1 between the direct recruits and promotees, as stipulated in the relevant rules. 2. It was contended that the appellant became entitled to be promoted to the post of Boat Driver, being qualified from 1991 onwards, based on his seniority. But, he was given promotion only in the year 2005. Contending that the petitioner was entitled to have 'retrospective promotion', he filed W.P.(C) No.2750 of 2007, wherein interference was declined as per Ext.P2 and the petitioner was relegated to approach the concerned authority by filing proper representation. 3. It is revealed from the records that the appellant approached the departmental authority by filing representations. W.A. No. 1580 of 2011 -:2:- But, since nothing transpired in the positive, the appellant approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No. 23370 of 2010, which was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment at the admission stage; directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the representation preferred by the petitioner and to have it finalised in accordance with law, within the time as stipulated therein. It was accordingly, that the matter was considered, leading to Ext.P7 order holding that, there was no violation of the ratio, though some occasional lapse was there, because of the various circumstances including the amalgamation of the Water Transport Department accommodating the drivers from the said source. 4. It is asserted in Ext.P7 that the entire files and registers including the seniority register were called for and examined by the concerned authority from 1987 till December 2005, which revealed that, altogether 42 direct recruitments were effected, while effecting 41 appointments by way of promotion. It is pointed out that the stipulation to maintain the ratio as 1:1 was accordingly given effect to and that there was no violation in this regard. It is also stated that no material was W.A. No. 1580 of 2011 -:3:- brought out by the writ petitioner, referring to any specific instance as to the alleged violation of the ratio and to substantiate the claim for retrospective promotion. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the violation is very much discernible from Ext.P7 order itself, whereas the said submission is sought to be controverted by the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents,referring to the facts and figures revealed from the records forming part of the present proceedings. 6. The interference sought before this Court was declined by the learned single Judge, holding that there was callous inaction on the part of the appellant/writ petitioner, who after availing promotion in the year 2005, sought to challenge the same claiming the benefit of retrospective promotion only years later. With regard to the merit also, an inference was made, that no reliable material was produced by the writ petitioner in support of the claim, but for the vague averments. It remains a fact that the petitioner/appellant was promoted in W.A. No. 1580 of 2011 -:4:- December 2005 and admittedly he approached this Court for the first time only in the year 2007. Despite different rounds of litigation, the appellant has not referred to any specific instance where the ratio 1:1 prescribed in the relevant rules was violated. So also, the appellant has not chosen to implead any persons who were appointed in preference to the claim of the appellant violating the ratio and no such challenge of appointment has ever been raised in any of the proceedings. In the above circumstance, we find that the claim projected by the appellant in the appeal is nothing but a bald one; which does not require any consideration at the hands of this Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb