IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 25960 of 2011(T) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VASANTHA KUMARAN PILLAI S/O CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, DEPUTY MANAGER (CO-ORDINATION) HEAD OFFICE, REHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD. PUNALOOR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.ROY THOMAS SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REHABILITATION PLANTATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNALUR-691 305. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, (LABOUR DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THOMAS VECHUCHERUVIL, DEPUTY MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) R.P.LTD. HEAD OFFICE, PUNALUR-691 305. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.25960 of 2011-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the denial of promotion to him as Deputy Manager (Estate), in spite of the fact that he is fully qualified for the said post. According to the petitioner, Deputy Manager (Estate) is the next post to which he is entitled to be promoted. He is now working as Deputy Manager (Co-ordination). However, instead of promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Manager (Estate), the third respondent has been put in charge of the said post. The petitioner places reliance on Ext.P3 and contends that he is the next senior-most person entitled to be promoted. He also places reliance on Ext.P1 counter-affidavit to put forward a contention that the third respondent is a person who has been found to be unfit to hold the said post. Therefore, according to the petitioner, putting the third respondent in-charge of the duties of the Deputy WP(C).No.25960/2011-T. 2 Manager (Estate) is only to deny the promotion that is legitimately due to him. 2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation to the Board of Directors of the first respondent. He seeks the issue of appropriate directions for a consideration thereof. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 is pending consideration of the Board of Directors of the first respondent, it is sufficient that the same is directed to be considered and disposed of on an early date. 5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the Board of Directors of the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-