IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15147 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.RAVEENDRANADHAN, AGED 53, COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR, INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CONVENOR, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER), COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, IDUKKI, KATTAPPANA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15147/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Commercial Tax Inspector since 1999. His grievance is that he is not being considered for promotion to the post of Commercial Tax Officer. It is the contention of the petitioner that no disciplinary action is pending against him and therefore, he is entitled to have his claim considered by the DPC. 2. However, in the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is stated that DPC (Lower) in its meeting held on 19.12.2005 considered the case of the petitioner, but he was superseded on account of the pendency of two disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent DPC held on 18.1.2006 and 7.12.2006 also considered his case and decided to supersede him in view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also stated that his name was again considered in the DPC on 12.6.2007, 8.1.2008, 24.12.2008 and 25.6.2009. He was superseded for the same reason. In the last DPC meeting held on 23.3.2011 also, petitioner's case was considered and his name W.P.(C).15147/10 2 was superseded for the reason that the period of the punishment ordered in Ext.P5 has not expired. Validity of Ext.P5 is not under challenge in the writ petition. 3. In view of above, respondents cannot be faulted for superseding the petitioner. Therefore, without prejudice to the rights, if any, of the petitioner against Ext.P5, writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs