IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32400 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- C.V.HEMACHANDRAN, CHERUKONAM, CHENNANCODE, VADASSERIKONAM P.O., OTTOOR VILLAGE, VIA VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., NOW WORKING AS ASST. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE CHIRANYINKIL, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR, ADV. SRI.P.BANI. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.32400 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Taluk Supply Officer, contends that he was denied promotion as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 9.11.1985, though he was qualified on that date to be promoted as Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner contends that vacancies of Upper Division Clerk were remaining unfilled on 9.11.1985 and that the said vacancies were filled up only on 15.11.1985 when 22 Lower Division Clerks were promoted as Upper Division Clerks. The petitioner relies on Ext.P6 judgment which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.923 of 2007. 2. The claim now made by the petitioner who entered service on 19.2.1980 is that he should have been promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 9.11.1985 and that he was belatedly promoted as Upper Division Clerk only in the year 1988. In my opinion, the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated. What the petitioner now seeks is something which he ought to have claimed nearly 23 years back. Further, if the petitioner is promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 9.11.1985, it will affect one of the promotees who is not in the party array. Thus on the grounds of delay and of non-joinder of necessary parties, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 13/11