IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7267 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.T.THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS OUSEPH, ALAKKALAYIL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 016. (STORE ISSUER, KSRTC, PONKUNNAM). BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. BY SRI. K.PRABHAKARAN - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7267 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner joined the KSRTC as a Conductor in the year 2000. The petitioner applied for category change as a Store Issuer on health grounds. The KSRTC considered the request of the petitioner and allowed him to work as a Store Issuer from 1.6.2000 onwards. The petitioner has been working as Store Issuer from 1.6.2000 onwards accordingly. 2. Now the petitioner challenges the validity of the category change itself on the ground that, for that category change no concurrence has been granted by the PSC. He therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records of this case: ii) Declare that no valid category change was taken place as Store Issuer in the case of the petitioner. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to repost the petitioners as Conductors with effect from the dates on which he was directed to work as Store Issuer from 1.6.2000 onwards, with all consequential benefits.” W.P. © No.7267/08 2 2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the following reasons: The petitioner himself applied for the category change and the Corporation granted the same. The petitioner worked in the post of Store Issuer all along. Now the petitioner seeks to go back as Conductor with effect from the original date on the ground that the PSC has not given concurrence. I do not think that the petitioner's contention can be countenanced. Even if there is no concurrence from the PSC, if the prayers of the petitioner are granted, it would be grossly unjust, in so far as the petitioner would be eligible for getting the salary of Conductor and all service benefits including promotion etc., without actually working as Conductor. Therefore I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P. © No.7267/08 3