IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3628 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.CHANDRAN, DISTRICT RETGISTRAR(AUDIT), REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE(HIGHER) FOR REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAXES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-35. 4. SAJAN KUMAR P.K., DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE-1. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).3628/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a District Registrar in the Department of Registration and is eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy inspector General of Registration, according to him. The latter is a selection post. Convener of DPC reported that there were nine vacancies in the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration for the year 2006 and accordingly DPC prepared a select list of nine persons in relation to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration for the year 2006. Petitioner objects to the same on the ground that there were actually ten vacancies in the said post for the year 2006. If the DPC had prepared a select list for ten vacancies, then petitioner would also have been included in the select list, according to him. 2. DPC prepared a select list for the year 2007 but included only one person, who, according to the petitioner, is junior to him. Thus for the year 2007, W.P.(C).3628/2008 2 petitioner is superceded. Petitioner objects to the same as well. Petitioner has filed a representation, Ext.P2, before the DPC both in relation to the select list, 2006 and in relation to the select list, 2007. In relation to the former, the objection is that DPC should have prepared a select list in relation to the actual vacancies which, according to him, was ten for the year 2006. His objection in relation to the year 2007 is that his seniority ought not have been superceded. He further submits that since he is a member of the scheduled caste, rigorous standards should not have been enforced against him. Petitioner's representation, Ext.P2, in relation to the select list prepared for the year 2006-07, is pending consideration before the second respondent. Petitioner makes reference to the fact that adverse remarks allegedly contained in the CR relatable to the select list of 2007, will actually not stand in view of Ext.P6. This is also a matter to be considered by the second respondent. W.P.(C).3628/2008 3 In the result, after hearing the learned Government Pleader also, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 and take appropriate decision thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs