IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19693 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ DR.M.JEMINI, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF PRACTICE OF MEDICINE, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-9. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI A.J. VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ............................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 19693 OF 2008 ............................................................................ Dated this the 15th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The case of the petitioner is that she joined service as Tutor on 25.11.1993 in the Department of Medicine, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. She was promoted as Lecturer on 02.02.2000 and her probation was declared on 01.02.2001. It is stated that as per the Special Rules introduced in the year 2001, the promotion to the post of Reader is from the post of Lecturer with four years' teaching experience. It is stated that though the petitioner has eight years' teaching experience in the feeder category, still, the petitioner was not promoted as Reader on the ground that there is no post of Reader in the Department. According to the petitioner, if the post of Lecturer now held by the petitioner is upgraded as Reader, there will be no additional financial burden to the Government since the petitioner is now drawing salary higher than the salary admissible to the post of Reader. Pointing out these facts , the petitioner made Ext. P4 representation to the first respondent through proper channel. Ext.P4 representation is pending disposal. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that the first respondent has received a representation dated 24.01.2008 and not a representation dated 29.01.2008 as stated in the Writ Petition. If the representation dated 24.01.2008 is the same as Ext. P4, there will be no difficulty. Otherwise, the petitioner is permitted to produce Ext. P4 representation before the first respondent for proper consideration. W.P.(C) No. 19693 OF 2008 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner: i) The first respondent shall consider Ext. P4 representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months , after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. If Ext. P4 representation dated 29.01.2008 is same as representation dated 24.01.2008 received by the first respondent, it is sufficient if that representation is disposed of by the first respondent. On the other hand, if the representation which is already received by the first respondent is different from Ext.P4 representation, the petitioner shall be permitted to produce Ext. P4 representation, in which case, the first respondent shall consider the same. ii) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and a certified copy of the judgment before the first respondent. iii) The petitioner shall be entitled to produce such other materials and documents ,as are relevant, before the first respondent. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk W.P.(C) No. 19693 OF 2008 3