IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14334 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOMAS LUKOSE, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) FOR PREPARING THE SELECT LIST FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14334 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Head Accountant in the ministerial cadre of the Motor Vehicle Department. According to the petitioner, the question as to whether persons in the ministerial cadre can be considered for promotion to the post of Joint RTO has been decided by this Court in the decision reported in Basheer v. Kerala Motor Vehicles Inspectors' Association & Others, 1995(1) ILR Ker. 284. The Departmental Promotion Committee of the Department who met on 1.3.2011 for considering persons to be included in the select lists for various posts including the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer made the following observation in Ext. P2 minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee: “The post of Joint Regional Transport Officer is purely technical one. Appointment of Senior Superintendents (ministerial staff) to the post of Joint Regional Transport Officer is a bad practice as they have no technical knowledge. It adversely affects the functioning of the Motor Vehicle Department especially in technical matters. Therefore the Committee suggested that the Motor Vehicles Department should consider creating a separate stream for promotion of Senior Superintendents to non-technical posts.” The petitioner is challenging the same in this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the functions and duties of Departmental Promotion Committee do not involve making of such recommendation in the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee insofar as their only function is to prepare select lists of persons to be promoted to higher posts. W.P(C) No. 14334 of 2011 -: 2 :- According to the petitioner, such recommendation is contrary to the decision in Basheer's case (supra). Therefore, the said observation in Ext. P2 is liable to be quashed. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext. P2 and quash para 2 in internal page-12 of the same; (ii) declare that the finding and recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in para-2 in internal page-12 of Ext. P2 is without any authority of law and is void and non est.” 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. I am of opinion that insofar as the Government is the authority to decide the question of amendment of the special rules, the observation in Ext. P2 is only an opinion of 3 persons constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee. They have made that observation based on their experience in the matter. The Government may or may not take into account such an observation in the matter of amendment of the special rules. Simply because the function of the Departmental Promotion Committee is only to select persons from the select list for promotion, I do not think that the Departmental Promotion Committee is acting without jurisdiction while making suggestions based upon their experience in the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee. In fact, the Government would know about situations warranting correction only from experience of such senior officers of the Departments. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the W.P(C) No. 14334 of 2011 -: 3 :- Departmental Promotion Committee bringing to the attention of the Government such situations. In any event, insofar as it is only an opinion of 3 persons constituting the Departmental Promotion Committee expressed in the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, which is not binding on the Government, the petitioner can take all his contentions against such suggestion also as and when the Government discusses the matter with the Associations of employees of the Department before making the amendment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.