IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 2514 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24110/2008 Dated 11/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- MARIAMMA.K.JACOB, LEGAL ASSISTANT GRADE-1., KSHG, ERNAKULAM, MAVALI PARANGATTU HOUSE, KSHB COLONY, IRUMBANAM PO., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------- KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI. A.JAYASANKAR, SC, KSHB. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2514 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed mainly with the following prayers: “i. Call for the entire records from the 2nd respondent concerning the promotion to the post of Section Officer(LAW); ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondent to consider the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Section Officer(LAW); iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing the respondent to cancel all the promotions to the post of Section Officer(LAW) overlooking the seniority and experience of the petitioner;” 2. The learned Single Judge finding that the petitioner is not qualified for promotion to the post of Section Officer (Law) dismissed the writ petition. Now the grievance is that a person who does not have even a law degree is put in charge of the post. It is submitted that this petitioner having WA No.2514/08 -:2:- a law degree is more qualified and more suitable and when such a person is available there is no justification in permitting another person in the officiating capacity. That person is not impleaded in the writ petition. However, when the writ appeal came up, an impleading petition has been filed. We do not think that the impleading should be allowed at this stage, in view of the order we propose to pass in the writ appeal. Since the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus, it is for her to approach the first respondent in which case the matter should be duly considered by the said respondent expeditiously, with notice to the petitioner and affected parties, in the matter of officiating in the post of Section Officer(Law)/temporary charge. The writ appeal is disposed of as above. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb WA No.2514/08 -:3:-