IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2010 / 28TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 26260 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- ABRAHAM K.JOHN, G.A.S.I. (H.C.NO.453) KALPETTA POLICE STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SAJAN ANTONY SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KANNUR RANGE, KANNUR. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WAYANAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 26260 OF 2010 (F) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Head Constable aspiring for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. One of his grievances is against Ext.P21 where according to the petitioner, he has been superseded once again. However, a reading of Ext.P21 shows that there are two disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, and that, in view of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner's name has been provisionally included in the select list prepared by the DPC. 2. In respect of an officer who is facing disciplinary proceedings, as in the case of the petitioner, Note I to Rule 28 provides that an officer is eligible to be included in the select list provisionally and his claim will be taken up for consideration depending upon the outcome of the proceedings. In this case, since proceedings are pending against the petitioner, his name has been included in the select list provisionally. This is fully in compliance with the provisions of Rule 28, Part II, KS & SSR. In that view of the matter, Ext.P21 cannot be faulted. WPC No. 26260/10 :2 : 3. In so far as the prayer against Ext.P1 is concerned, Ext.P1 is an order of promotion where the petitioner has been declined promotion on the ground of adverse remarks in his annual confidential reports for the year 2006. It is seen that, against this order, petitioner filed appeals, which were dismissed. Against that proceedings, he has filed Ext.P13 representation to the Government, which according to the petitioner is pending consideration. He also submits that this representation has not been considered by the Government despite the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, as at present, Ext.P1 has merged in the appellate orders and in the absence of any challenge against the appellate orders, an independent challenge against Ext.P1 cannot be entertained. 4. In so far as Ext.P8 is concerned, that is an order of punishment imposed way back on 21/9/06, against which, the petitioner filed an appeal, on the basis of which, the appellate authority by Ext.P9 reduced the punishment. In that view of the matter, Ext.P8 having merged in Ext.P9, there cannot be any challenge against Ext.P8. 5. Ext.P10 is only a show cause notice and Exts.P14 and WPC No. 26260/10 :3 : P17 are orders of promotion issued in 2007 and 2008. On account of the delay, Exts.P14 and P17 cannot be challenged at this distance of time. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp