IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 4017 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- SMT. JAILA A., FIROS MANSIL, NEAR KHADI CENTER, PAZHAMPALAKODE P.O., THARUR VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PIN-678 544, NOW WORKING AS EXTENSION OFFICER(WW) IN BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALATHUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COMMISSIONERATE OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ALATHUR-678 541. 4. SMT. K.K.VASANTHAKUMARI, E.O. (WW) PANTHALAYANI, NOW PROMOTED AND POSTAL TO EO WW GRADE I, ATTAPPADI-673 612. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 4017 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 30.08.2006 PROMOTING LADY VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICERS TO EXTENSION OFFICER (WW) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT CALLING FOR THE CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF ELIGIBLE EXTENSION OFFICERS (WW) DATED 27.05.2010 EXT P3 : COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 26.07.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT P4 : COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 01.02.2011 PROMOTING THE EXTENSION OFFICER (WW) TO JOINT BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT P5 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.01.2011 EXT P6 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.02.2011 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER EXT P7 : COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P6 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 07/03/2011. EXT P8 : COPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDING EXT.P7 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.03.2011 EXT P9 : COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF RS.3120/- REMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.4017 of 2011-B. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a handicapped person working as an Extension Officer, (Women's Welfare) under the third respondent. Her complaint is that overlooking her seniority, the fourth respondent has been promoted as per Ext.P4 dated 1.2.2011. The petitioner is Sl.No.212 and the fourth respondent is Sl.No.215 in the final seniority list of Village Extension Officers dated 23.7.1994. The petitioner and the fourth respondent along with 21 others were promoted as Extension Officers (Women's Welfare) as per Ext.P1 on 30.8.2006. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are Sl.Nos.4 and 5 respectively in Ext.P1. In Ext.P2 also the petitioner and the fourth respondent are Sl.Nos.13 and 14. 2. While so, on 1.2.2011, the second respondent WP(C).No.4017/2011-B. 2 issued Ext.P4 order promoting eight Extension Officers (Women's Welfare) out of which the fourth respondent who is junior to the petitioner is Sl.No.8. There is no reason stated in Ext.P4 for not promoting the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there are no adverse remarks in her confidential report. Therefore, she has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In paragraph 4 of the counter- affidavit what is stated is that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner consequent to her involvement in a vigilance case and the same is pending finalisation. There were allegations against the authorities of Tarur Grama Panchayat in Palakkad district regarding distribution of 'revolving fund', and an inquiry revealed certain irregularities against the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner had collected excess amount from the beneficiaries and had utilised only a lesser amount being WP(C).No.4017/2011-B. 3 the cost of stamp paper and typing charges, thereby retaining the balance amount with her. The retention of such amount was not informed to the office also. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,500/- plus penal interest towards the loss caused to the Government. The reason for not considering the petitioner is stated to be the omission to remit the said amount. 4. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 5. The reason for overlooking the claim for promotion of the petitioner has been stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit is as follows: “A disciplinary proceedings is pending against Smt.Jaila and Government issued a notice to her to remit an amount of Rs.1,500/- plus penal interest towards loss to Government. But the petitioner did not respond to this notice positively. So she was not considered for promotion to the post of Joint Block Development Officer.” 6. The petitioner was directed to remit the said WP(C).No.4017/2011-B. 4 amount of Rs.1,500/- as per Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is dated 26.2.2011. However, it is worth noticing that the fourth respondent was promoted much earlier on 1.2.2011, as evident from Ext.P4. If that be so, the reason stated in the counter-affidavit could not have been the reason for denying the petitioner her promotion. However, in an earlier paragraph of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the light of the allegations pending against her. Be that as it may, it is stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner would be considered for promotion to the cadre of Joint Block Development Officer as and when the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her are finalised and orders issued in the matter by the Government. 7. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings are completed and are no longer pending. The amounts directed to be remitted by the petitioner have also been remitted, as evident from Ext.P9. WP(C).No.4017/2011-B. 5 Therefore, at present, there is no impediment in considering the petitioner for promotion. 8. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Block Development Officer and to pass appropriate orders regarding her promotion, expeditiously. The question of restoring the seniority of the petitioner over the fourth respondent is left open to be agitated by the petitioner in appropriate proceedings. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-