IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8672 of 2006(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.M.PHILOMINA, W/O.MATHEW, SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALUMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT: ------------- KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALUMMOODU, TRIVANDRUM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 8672/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2004. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 18.9.2004. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.11.2005 IN W.P.(C) NO.2166/2005-G EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2005. RESPONDENT'S EXTS. EXT.R1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED SERVICE RULES BY NO.20134/D3/04/ID DATED 7.10.2004. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 8672 OF 2006-G ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Senior Assistant of the respondent Company. Claiming promotion, inter alia, to the post of Junior Executive, she filed Ext.P2 representation before the Chairman of the respondent on 18.09.2004. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 5.11.2005 directed the respondent to consider her claim. In obedience to the said direction, the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with retrospective effect from 1997 has been considered and rejected by Ext.P4 communication. The reason given is that the company normally does not fill up the vacancies as when they arise. They are filled up only according to the requirement of the company with reference to the level of production. Challenging Ext.P4, this writ petition is filed. 2. The petitioner has not produced the Service Rules, based on which she has put forward the claim. The petitioner's grievance highlighted against Ext.P4 in the writ petition is that the claim for WPC 8672/2006 2 promotion has to be considered with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the company fills up the vacancies in its establishment only according to its requirement and not with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit. 4. In service jurisprudence, the right of the management to take a conscious decision, not to fill up the vacancies either by direct recruitment or by promotion, is recognized. The respondent company claims, it follows the practice of filling up the vacancies only according to its requirement with reference to the level of production. No material has been produced in this writ petition to dislodge the said contention of the respondent. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P4 and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 19th September, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/