IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 19665 of 2007(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.P.SAVITHRI, W/O.K.K.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, 55 YEARS, SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, SHORNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES (E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.19665/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST OF SUB REGISTRARS AS ON 26.2.07. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 24.2.07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT SUSPENDING THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. P4:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 6901/07. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26.3.07 OF THE IST RESPONDENT REINSTATING THE PETITIONER. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 17.4.07 BY THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 12.11.08. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.19665 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodhanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a pensioner. She retired from service on 30.6.2007 while she was working as Sub Registrar in the Registration Department. The petitioner's grievance is that though six vacancies of District Registrar were in existence as on 1.6.2007, her claim was not considered even for notional promotion, when the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 26.7.2007. The petitioner submits that going by the approved seniority list, she was fifth in the list and as admittedly six vacancies of District Registrar were in existence as on 1.6.2007, the Departmental Promotion Committee ought to have considered her case as well for promotion, at least on a notional basis. The petitioner has claiming this relief moved the Convenor of the W.P.(C) No.19665/2007 2 Departmental Promotion Committee by submitting Ext.P7 representation dated 12.11.2008, a copy of which has been produced along with I.A.No.14779/2008. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Convenor of the Departmental Promotion Committee, to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation and take a decision thereon, having regard to the admitted fact that six vacancies of District Registrar were in existence on 1.6.2007. 4. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent discloses that the petitioner was fifth in the seniority list of Sub Registrars eligible for promotion as District Registrar. It is also conceded that as on 1.6.2007, six vacancies of District Registrar were in existence. The petitioner admittedly retired from service only on 30.6.2007. The Departmental Promotion W.P.(C) No.19665/2007 3 Committee was not convened before the petitioner retired from service. For the reason that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.6.2007, her case was not considered even for notional promotion as District Registrar against the vacancies which existed on 1.6.2007, when the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 26.7.2007. Such being the situation, the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation merits consideration at the hands of the Departmental Promotion Committee. In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 representation and take a decision thereon, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.