IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 2546 of 2009(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- MANOJ MATHEW, S/O. T.MATHEW, AGED 30 YEARS, L.D. STORE KEEPER, TITUS II TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE MANAGER, TITUS II TEACHER'S TRAINING COLLEGE, THIRUVALLA. 5. THE PRINCIPAL, TITUS II TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, THIRUVALLA. 6. SRI. JAMES T. UMMEN L.D. CLERK (UNDER ORDERS OF PROMOTION AS UD CLERK, TITUS II TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, THIRUVALLA 7. SRI. C. SABU MON, LOWER DIVISION CLERK (UNDER ORDERS OF PROMOTIONAS U.D. CLERK, TITUS TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, THIRUVALLA. ADV. MR. BABU VARGHESE FOR R4 & 5 MR. .B.MOHANLAL FOR R6&R7 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P(C) No. 2546 of 2009-C ------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as L.D Store Keeper in Titus II Teachers Training College, Thiruvalla. He entered service on 25.5.2006. Respondents 6 and 7 also entered service as L.D Store Keeper in the same college on the same day. According to the petitioner, promotion to the category of U.D Clerk is to be made from among L.D Clerks/L.D Store Keepers applying the ratio of 1:1. He submits that he has passed the prescribed tests and is therefore eligible and qualified to be promoted as U.D Clerk. The petitioner also contends that vacancies of U.D Clerk were available even in the year 2007 and that as on the date on which the vacancies arose respondents 6 and 7 were not qualified. Apprehending that respondents 6 and 7 would be promoted earlier than him, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 31.12.2008 before the Director of Collegiate Education. It appears thereafter orders were passed promoting respondents 6 and 7 as U.D Clerk. The petitioner thereupon by Ext.P4 representation dated 8.1.2009 before the W.P(C) No. 2546 of 2009-C 2 Director of Collegiate Education staking his claim for promotion as U.D Clerk earlier than and atleast in any case with effect from the date on which respondents 6 and 7 were promoted. This writ petition was thereafter filed inter alia seeking a direction to the Director of Collegiate Education to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P4 representations, before granting approval of the promotion of respondents 6 and 7 as U.D Clerk. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 23.1.2009 this Court ordered notice on admission to party respondents and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. I have heard Sri.T.T. Muhamood, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3, Sri.Babu Varghese, the learned standing counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri.B.Mohanlal, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7. From the materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, it is evident that respondents 6 and 7 have already been promoted to the category of U.D Clerk. The petitioner claims promotion as U.D Clerk earlier than respondents 6 and 7. Whether W.P(C) No. 2546 of 2009-C 3 going by the date of occurrence of vacancy and the qualifications prescribed for the post, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted earlier than respondents 6 and 7 is primarily a matter for the Director of Collegiate Education to decide. The Director of Collegiate Education is the authority competent to approve the promotion of non-teaching staff of private aided colleges. The petitioner has already moved that authority in Exts.P3 and P4 representations staking his claim for promotion. Since the Director of Collegiate Education has not yet taken a decision in the matter, I am of the opinion that it would be premature for this Court at this stage to go into the question whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as U.D Clerk earlier than respondents 6 and 7. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Director of Collegiate Education to consider the request made by the petitioner in Exts.P3 and P4 representations, while taking a decision the question whether the promotion of respondents 6 and 7 to the category of U.D Clerk can be approved. The Director of Collegiate Education shall also hear the petitioner and respondents W.P(C) No. 2546 of 2009-C 4 4 to 7 before taking a decision in the matter. Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// PA to Judge ab