IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22668 of 2004(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.RANCIS, RANGE OFFICER, PALGHAT WORKING PLAN RAGE NO.2. ARANYA BHAVAN, OLAAKKODE P.O. R/A.VADAKKEKUDIYIL, OONNUKAL P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (ADMINISTRATION) FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 22668/2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 9-8-58. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT. EXT.P4 MEMORANDUM OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF PRESS RELEASE. EXT.P7 GOVT. ORDER DT. 17-10-2002. EXT.P8 LETTER DT. 8-7-2002. EXT.P9 MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 9-5-2007. EXT.P10 NOTIFICATION DT. 13-6-2008. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------ EXT.R1(a) NOTIFICATION ON THE GAZETTE DT. 24-8-1897. EXT.R1(b) MAHAZAR DT. 16-4-2002. EXT.R1(c) ORDER DT. 17-7-2002. EXT.R1(d) PROCEEDINGS DT. 6-2-2007. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 22668 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on the ground that a vigilance case is pending against him. According to him, in the decision of this Court in Sasidharan K.K v. State of Kerala, 2008(4) KHC 146, the non-inclusion of a person in the select list can be justified only if the vigilance court had already framed charges against a person at the time of consideration of the person for such promotion. The petitioner would contend that no charges were framed against the petitioner at the time of consideration of his case for promotion. This is disputed by the learned Learned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, charges were actually framed against the petitioner on 20-7-2002. In the above circumstances, the petitioner submits that that question also may be considered while considering Ext. P11 representation filed by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner therefore submits that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P11. After hearing both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P11, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to rely on the decision in Sasidharan's case (supra) or W.P.C. No. 22668/2004 -: 2 :- any other materials which, according to the petitioner, would support his case and the 2nd respondent shall consider the applicability of those materials in the light of the facts of the case. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/