IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 143 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34183/2004 Dated 14/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 2ND PETITIONER ------------------------- DR.AGUSTIN, PROFESSOR, CPBMP, COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE, VELLANIKKARA, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ IST PETITIONER --------------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION REG.NO. 256/56, VELLANIKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY POST, TRISSUR. BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN STANDING COUNSEL FOR UTY. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.A.No.143 of 2008 ======================== Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The appellant is a Professor of the first respondent- University. He submits that he was eligible to be promoted as Associate Professor (non-cadre) in accordance with the scheme prevailing in the University before the introduction of the U.G.C. Scheme. Initially, as per the U.G.C. Scheme, promotions ordered upto 1.2.1988 under the old scheme were saved and those made after the said cut of date were to be ignored. The said cut off date was modified by Annexure A10 order dated 22.9.1993. So, promotions under the old scheme granted upto 25.6.1990 were saved. But the said Annexure does not say that those who were not actually promoted should be promoted, provided they were eligible as per the promotion Scheme then in force. The appellant submitted that he represented in time claiming promotion as Associate Professor (non-cadre) with effect from 26.12.1988. He also pointed out that some of the similarly placed WA 143/08 -: 2 :- persons were granted promotions. Therefore, his claim should have been allowed by the University. But the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition noticing that the claim of the writ petitioner is stale. The said finding is met by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by pointing out that he was repeatedly representing to the promotion from time to time. 2. We notice that the petitioner is trying to assert a right which he lost in 1988 and the writ petition filed for the said purpose in 2004 is not maintainable. The learned Judge has exercised his discretion not to entertain the writ petition. We find that the said exercise of discretion is not perverse and therefore, we are not justified in interfering with the same. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 25/1