IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18433 of 2010(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.P.MATHEW,SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION,KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.N.N.PRASEEDA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, CONSTITUTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEERS IN THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, REP.BY ITS CONVENER THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LSGD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.B.HEMALATHA,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHANGANACHERY MUNICIPALITY. 5. M.K.SASINDRAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICE,KOZHIKODE. 6. RAJU MATHEW,EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, COCHIN CORPORATION, KOCHI. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 18435, 18446 AND 18472 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.18433 (D), 18435 (D), 18446 (E) & 18472 (H) of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, challenge is against reversion of the petitioners. 2. The petitioner in WP(C) No.18433/2010 is presently occupying the post of Superintending Engineer in the LSGD and the petitioners in other writ petitions are occupying the post of Executive Engineer in LSGD. By the orders impugned in these writ petitions, they are ordered to be reverted. 3. According to the learned Government Pleader, reason for the reversion is mainly that the promotion of the petitioner in WP(C) No.18433/2010 as Executive Engineer and the promotion of other petitioners as Assistant Executive Engineers, have not been regularised and their probation is not declared in those posts. It is therefore that the petitioners were provisionally promoted to the posts now held by them and were not considered for regular promotion. WP(C) Nos.18433, 18435, 18446 & 18472/2010 -2- 4. Since the facts are as above, though their reversion cannot be faulted, fact remains that for not regularising their promotions and not declaring satisfactory completion of their probation, they are made to suffer and their juniors are promoted. In the circumstances, their grievances can be redressed only if their cases are considered for regularising their promotions and for declaring their probation and on that basis they are considered for regular promotion to the posts of Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer, as the case may be. Though the learned Government Pleader seeks six months' time for completing the aforesaid process, I feel the time sought is too long and can be of prejudice to the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, I direct that the respondents shall complete the aforesaid entire process as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of writ petition. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg