IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12689 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MARY P.M., CHATHOTH HOUSE, CRA 56, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 025, (ATTENDER (HR.GR.), ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM (RTD.)). BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN SRI.R.SRINATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. MANAGER, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. 3. SMT.THRESIAMMA JOSEPH, LD STOREKEEPER, ST.TERESA'S COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.12689 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was the senior most qualified Attender in the service of the second respondent. She retired from the service on superannuation on 31.5.2007. On 1.4.04, a post of L.D Store Keeper, which is in the cadre of L.D Clerk, occurred on account of the retirement of one Smt.Annamma T.J on 31.3.2004. However, the second respondent did not take any step to effect promotion of the petitioner to the said post of L.D Store Keeper despite she being the senior most qualified Attender then eligible for promotion to the said post. The said post remained unfilled. On the very next day of retirement of the petitioner, the said post was filled by promoting the immediate junior of the petitioner, the third respondent. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the occurence of the said vacancy on 1.4.2004, only when the third respondent was promoted to the said post. Immediately thereafter, she preferred Ext.P7 representation before the first respondent. Since no action has been taken thereon by the first respondent, Ext.P8 reminder was W.P.(C) NO.12689/2010 2 sent by the petitioner. Despite the receipt of Exts.P7 and P8, no action was taken by the first respondent. It was with these averments that this Writ Petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner contends that the action on the part of the second respondent in not considering the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion despite the occurrence of vacancy on 1.4.2004 and keeping it unfilled and then filling it up immediately on her retirement is tainted with mala fides. 3. When a representation is submitted before an authority who is competent to look into the grievances raised in that representation, he has a duty to consider the same. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.12689/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.12689/2010 JUDGMENT 19th May, 2010