IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30978 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.AUGUSTINE, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION OFFICE, MEPPADY, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. SRI.K.N.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, WAYANAD. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, WAYANAD. 3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. M.J.THRESIAMMA, PAZHACHIRAYIL HOUSE, KAMMANA P.O., (VIA) MANAMTODDY, NORTH WAYANAD. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LSG DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MRS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.30978 of 2009 (N) -------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined service as 2nd grade Overseer in the Panchayat Common Service. After joining service in 1983, he was promoted as 1st grade Overseer in 1987. According to the petitioner in Ext.P1 seniority list, he was at Serial No.4, while the 4th respondent was at Serial No.5, and was thus junior to him. 2. While continuing as such, by Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner on 23/02/1994, he sought promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in a vacancy that was available at Meenangadi Panchayat. Without promoting him, by Ext.P4 order dated 24/02/1994, 4th respondent was promoted as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently, the petitioner was also promoted as Assistant Engineer with effect from 16/11/2001. The 4th respondent continued in service and retired in 2003, and the petitioner also is due to retire in March, 2010. 3. According to the petitioner, he came to know that the promotion of the 4th respondent as Assistant Engineer given by WP(C) No.30978/2009 -2- Ext.P4 order dated 24/02/1994 was erroneous, only in February, 2008, and that immediately thereafter, he made Exts.P9 & P10 representations requesting promotion with effect from the date on which the 4th respondent was promoted. No response was forthcoming and therefore, he made Ext.P11 representation to the 5th respondent. Both these representations have not been acted upon and it is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations. 4. As already noticed, the case now set up by the petitioner is that the promotion of the 4th respondent ordered by Ext.P4 dated 24/02/1994 as Assistant Engineer was erroneous. This contention is highly belated, but is sought to be explained by stating that the petitioner came to know of this irregularity in the promotion only in February, 2008. However, there is nothing to substantiate the case of the petitioner that he came to know of the irregularity in the promotion of the 4th respondent only in February, 2008. Therefore, I am inclined to think that this Court will not be justified in directing consideration of the belated representations filed by the petitioner, WP(C) No.30978/2009 -3- contending that the promotion granted to the 4th respondent way back in February, 1994 is irregular. Therefore, on account of the delay, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, and it is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg