IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35775 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAVI K.P., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, WORKING AS TRAINING SUPERINTEDNENT STDD ITC, PUTHEDOM NADUKANI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULED TRIBE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DIRECTORATE DEPT. VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT OFFICER, INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (ITDP), THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. 4. R. SUDHA, INDUSTRIAL SUPERIVISOR, ITDP, NILAMBUR. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.35775 of 2009 (N) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claim of the petitioner is for promotion to the post of Training Officer. It is stated that a vacancy has arisen on 31/03/2009, and that the 4 th respondent, who according to the petitioner is an unqualified candidate, is going to be promoted. The petitioner states that he had also filed Exts.P1 & P2 before the 2 nd respondent claiming promotion and that inspite of all these, his claim is likely to be over looked. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the issue of promotion was considered by the DPC and that the DPC rejected the proposal since qualification and method of appointment for the post have not been prescribed. It is stated that thereafter, the department has made proposal to the Government for prescribing qualification and method of appointment, and that orders are awaited in this matter. It is stated that, at this stage, there is no proposal to fill up the post of Training Officer. WP(C) No.35775/2009 -2- 3. The premise on which the petitioner has approached this Court is that the 4th respondent is unqualified and is going to be promoted to the post of Training Officer over looking his rightful claims. From the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that his apprehension is baseless. If that be so, as at present, the petitioner has no grievance to be redressed in this writ petition. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, this writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg