IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16592 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEELA JOHN,AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, K RISHI BHAVAN, NATTAKOM,KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT ELANGITHARA, VELOOR PO, KOTTAYAM 686 003. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN SMT.LEENA MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER),REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.16640/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) Nos.16592 (Y) & 16640 (D) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working as Agricultural Officers. They aspire promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. Exts.P5 in these writ petitions are the Government Orders approving select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Lower) pursuant to its meeting held on 17/02/2010. The petitioners were excluded from consideration, and the reason according to them, is the pendency of disciplinary action initiated against them pursuant to Exts.P1 & P2, to which they submitted explanations, copies of which are Exts.P3. Aggrieved by their exclusion from Ext.P5, they have filed Exts.P6 representations before the 2nd respondent invoking Rule 28(b) of the KS & SSR. Exts.P6 are also pending. Therefore, complaining of delay in the finalisation of disciplinary action and their exclusion from Exts.P5, these writ petitions are filed. 2. From the facts as noticed above, the only order to be WP(C) Nos.16592 & 16640/2010 -2- passed is to direct consideration of Ext.P6 and to direct the 1st respondent to expedite the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners. 3. In the light of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- That the 2nd respondent shall consider Exts.P6 filed by the petitioners. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that the 1st respondent shall take expeditious steps for conclusion of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioners pursuant to Exts.P1 & P2, and pass final orders in the matter. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 & 2 for compliance. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg