IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2010 / 28TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22404 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.G. MADHANAKRISHNAN, S/O.M.GOVINDAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, MEENANGADI P.O. WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (GW) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-I. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-I. 3. THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT JALA VIJNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -3. 4. SRI.K.S. MADHU, SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (HYDROLOGY PROJECT) DIRECTORATE OF GROUND WTER DEPARTMENT, JALA VIJNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 22404 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an Executive Engineer in the Ground Water Department since 1.3.2005. He is aspiring for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. According to the petitioner, his claims have been over looked by the respondents for the reason that by Ext.P6, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner in relation to an allegation which took place in 1993. It is stated that the proceedings were finalised by Ext.P13 proceedings dated 8.9.2009 directing to withhold one increment of the petitioner without cumulative effect. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the said punishment cannot be relied upon to deny his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. He has also relied on Exts.P16 to P18 judgments of this Court in support of this contention. It is also complained that even though he filed Exts.P25 to 27 representations before respondents 1 and 3, his representations have not evoked any response. Aggrieved by all these, this writ petition has been filed. WPC No.22404/2010 2 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the effect of Exts.P16 to P18 judgments rendered by this Court and the Supreme Court is that pendency of proceedings as in this case could not have resulted in depriving the petitioner of his promotion, his complaints have to be considered. Having regard to the pendency of representations filed by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to consider the representations filed by the petitioner and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce copies of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC (JUDGE) vps WPC No.22404/2010 3 WPC No.22404/2010 4