IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21970 of 2004(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. G. BHANU, DAFFARY-CUM-CASH PEON, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KANDALLOOR BRANCH, KAYAMKULAM. 2. VARGHESE PHILIP, CASH PEON, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, KAYAMKULAM. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, HEAD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION-IV, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.21970/2004-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Seeking for a direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to higher posts, this writ petition was filed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second petitioner has already retired from service and, therefore, what survives is only the claim of the first petitioner. 2. The first petitioner is working as Daffary- cum-Cash Peon under the service of the first respondent-Bank. He entered service on 23/06/1990 and in the years 1998 and 2004, he passed written test conducted by the bank for promotion to the non- subordinate service cadre as Cashier-Cum-Godown Keeper. Ext.P1 is the copy of the list published by the Personnel Administration Department of the Bank. Even though both the petitioners appeared for interview and performed well, their names did not find a place in Ext.P1. By Ext.P2, the first petitioner requested to reconsider his claim for promotion. It is his W.P.(C). No.21970/2004 -:2:- contention that without forwarding the same to the first respondent, the second respondent has sent a memorandum as per Ext.P3 to the Branch Manager stating that the first petitioner's request cannot be considered as there is no provision for review petition in the case of award staff. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner is still working in the same category and is due to retire shortly. 4. It is clear that the first respondent has not been given a proper reply as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, now since years have gone after the writ petition was filed, the review of Ext.P1 list cannot be made at this distance of time for the reasons pointed out by the first petitioner. But, if still there is an eligible claim for promotion, the respondents will have to consider it in accordance with the rules or regulations in the matter. Therefore, depending upon the circumstances as on today, the first respondent will consider the claim W.P.(C). No.21970/2004 -:3:- of the first petitioner for promotion to the higher post and furnish a reply to the first petitioner within a period of six weeks. The first petitioner will file appropriate representation before the competent authority among the first respondent along with a copy of this Judgment for consideration. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE