IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 28062 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SUNOJ.V, (PRESENTLY WORKING AS LECTURER IN CENTRAL POLYTECHNIC, VATTIYOORKAVU) T.C 14/1263, OBSERVATORY VALLY LINE, VIKASBHAVAN.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. V.D. RAMANI, (LECTURER, GOVT. POLYTECHNIC, KOTHAMANGALAM), W/O. SUDHAKARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, A-26, FACT TOWN SHIP, ELOOR, UDYOGAMANDAL, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.T.D.SALIM SRI.C.S.YESUDAS SRI.PAUL C THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. 2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.T.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 28062 OF 2008 N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Assistant Lecturers working in the Technical Education Department. The claim is for promotion as Lecturers. Their claim was examined by this Court in a batch of writ petitions which resulted in Ext. P4. However, in Ext. P5 judgment in W.A. No. 73/99 though their claim was upheld, the question as to whether the petitioners are in the feeder category was left open. 2. It was following this, the petitioners have filed Exts. P6(a) and P6(b) representations before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has not so far considered this matter and given a reply to these representations. According to the petitioners even thereafter, the Government issued Ext. P7 clarifying their eligibility for the benefit of the pre-amended Special Rules and that the similar benefit has been granted to one of their juniors, namely, Girija R. Nair and yet another person. Thereafter, petitioners submit W.P.(C) No. 28062 OF 2008 -2- that they have filed Exts. P10(a) and P10(b) representations before the 1st respondent and even these representations remain without any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed praying that they should be directed to be promoted to Lecturer category. 3. Since in Ext. P5 judgment, the issue as to whether the petitioners come within the purview of the feeder category has been left open that certainly is a matter for either of the respondents to decide. Therefore, at this stage, what is appropriate, in my view is that the 1st respondent should consider Exts. P10(a) and P10(b) representations filed by the petitioners. This shall be done by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-