IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 1086 of 2008(G) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.8672/2006 Dated 19/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------- C.M.PHILOMINA, SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALUMMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- KERALA AUTOMOBILES LIMITED, ARALUMMOODU, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ R.P.No.1086 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 8672 OF 2006 (G) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 O R D E R WP(C) N0.8672/06 was filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P4. In the representation, which led to Ext.P4 order, claim was that her promotion as Senior Assistant shall be with retrospective effect from 1997, when the vacancy to which she was subsequently promoted had arisen. That claim of the petitioner was turned down by the Company by Ext.P4 order stating that promotions were effected depending upon the requirements of the Company and taking into account the level of production. The writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 19th of September, 2008 holding that the petitioner did not produce any material to contradict the stand taken by the Company to the above effect. 2. In the Review petition, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure A1, the Service Rules, and according to the counsel, the Service Rules enable the petitioner to claim promotion with effect from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Reference was made to Clause 6, and in particular, Clauses 6.01 RP No.1086/08 :2 : and 6.03. Clause 6.01 provides that eligibility of candidates for promotion will normally be considered as the date on which the vacancy arose and Clause 6.03 specifies the eligibility criteria to be satisfied. 3. In my view, the aforesaid two provisions of the Service Rules lays down the eligibility of an employee to be considered for promotion and it does not oblige the Company to effect promotion with retrospective effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the Service Rules do not in any manner show that the view taken in the judgment dated 19th of September, 2008 is vitiated by any error warranting its review. 4. The fact that the petitioner has become eligible to be considered on a previous date and that the promotions were effected subsequently does not in any manner justify the claim of the petitioner for retrospective promotion. Review petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp