IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 980 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.10424/2002 Dated 04/11/2005 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ------------------------- K. THANKA (RETD. NURSING SUPERINTENDENT) COCHIN PORT TRUST HOSPITAL, MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-3. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN, REP. BY SECRETARY. 2. CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN. 3. UNIN OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAMUMAR (R1&R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.980 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. She joined the service of the Cochin Port Trust Hospital, as Staff Nurse, on 13.5.1972. She was promoted as Nursing Sister on 21.8.1978 and further promoted as Matron, on 1.4.1986. Still later, she got the third promotion as Nursing Superintendent, on 1.4.1989. In that post she stagnated and finally, retired on 31.1.2002. The appellant felt aggrieved by her stagnation in the post of Nursing Superintendent. She was desirous of having a still higher post, so that, she could get promotion. Seeking the said relief, she earlier approached this Court and this Court, by Ext.P11 judgment, directed the Port Trust to amend the rules, creating posts and further providing promotional avenues. On appeal filed by the Cochin Port Trust, this Court reversed the same by Ext.P12 judgment, but directed the Port Trust to consider the representation filed by the appellant. The said representation was considered and rejected by Ext.P15. 2. In the meantime, the appellant retired from service on 31.1.2002. The Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following WA NO.980/06 2 reliefs :- “(a) Call for the records connected with the case; (b) issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to refix the pensionary benefits of the petitioner by giving notional promotion in the higher grade; (c) direct the authorities to pay all consequential monetary benefits to the petitioner in the light of the promotion. (d) pass such other orders as are deemed just, fit, fair and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.” The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the Writ Petition. Hence, this Writ Appeal. We notice that Ext.P15 order was not under challenge in this Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was amended, incorporating the challenge against Ext.P15 also. 3. The appellant who entered service as a Staff Nurse, got three promotions. For those who do not get promotion, there is a Scheme for Career Advancement, providing for placement in higher grades, on completion of a specified number of years in the same cadre. Since the appellant got three promotions, the said Scheme was not applicable to her. Of course, the appellant would be very happy, if there was a 4th promotion post for her. But, this Court can direct the Port Trust to provide for a 4th WA NO.980/06 3 promotion post, if only she has got a legal right and the Cochin Port Trust has got a corresponding duty. The appellant has failed to satisfy us that the appellant has got such a legal right and the Port Trust has got a corresponding duty, to create one more higher post to provide promotional avenues to her. In the absence of any legal right, this Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus. In this context, we think, it is apposite to quote the decision of the Apex Court in Mani Subrit v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 276), wherein, it was held as follows : “It is elementary that it is to be re-stated that none can ask for mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something.” In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.980 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 8th March, 2010.