IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17261 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- K.RAJAN, WORK ASSISTANT, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, KESAVADASAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM.4 BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGIND DIRECTOR, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NO.2 HADDOWS ROAD, ZONAL OFFICE, SOUTH CHENNAI-2. 3. GENERAL MANAGER (KERALA) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM-33. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SC, FCI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.17261/2008 E APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXTRACT IN SENIORITY LIST. EXT.P1(A): COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.E1/2(15)/87-ENGG. DTD. 28/07/1988. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE EXTRACT IN SENIORITY LIST OF WORK ASSISTANT ON 31/05/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.FCIESU/G.S/C.C.2006 DTD. 31/07/06. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.BKNKS/NC/2006 DTD. 11/12/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 21/03/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C./ENGG/32/ESTT/2005-06 DTD. 01/12/2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/ENGG/32/ESTT/2005 TD. 4/10/05. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/07/2005. EXT.P8(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESSTT/2/(12/2004 DTD. 26/07/05. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO.3307 OF 2008 R. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E.1/30 (1)/2008 DTD. 9/04/08 OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SOUTH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.A1(6)/77 DTD. 21/06/78 OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE BANGALORE, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA. EXT.P11(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1(12)78-79 DTD. 6/06/79. XT.P11(B): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1(12)77-78 VOL.IV DTD.21/01/81. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ESTT.30(18)/2008 DTD. 13/3/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.Ravindran, J. ===================== W.P(C).No.17261 of 2008 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT Heard Sri.B.Gopakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.S.Karthika, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Work Assistant in the Food Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation” for short. He entered service on 6.8.1988. He had earlier filed W.P.(C) No.3307 of 2008 in this Court complaining that though many of his colleagues were recruited to the category of Junior Engineer (Civil) and though vacancies were in existence, his request for such recruitment was denied. He had also submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 18.7.2005 before the Managing Director of the Corporation setting out his grievances and claiming appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil). Ext.P8(a) produced along with the Writ Petition indicates that Ext.P8 representation was forwarded by the immediate superior officer of the petitioner to the Zonal Manager of the Corporation at Chennai for onward transmission to the Managing Director at New Delhi. Taking note of this fact, by Ext.P9 judgment delivered on 29.1.2008, this Court directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 and to take a decision thereon W{(C) 17261/08 -: 2 :- within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. There was also a further direction that while passing orders on Ext.P8, the views expressed by the petitioner's superior officers in Exts.P5 to P7 shall also be taken into account. Though this Court had in Ext.P9 judgment directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to consider Ext.P8 and pass orders thereon, it appears that the Executive Director (South) considered the said representation and passed Ext.P10 order dated 9.4.2008 rejecting the petitioner's request. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this Writ Petition wherein the petitioner also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to extend to him the benefits extended to the Work Assistants referred to in Ext.P12, by accommodating him as Junior Engineer (Civil). 3. The respondents have filed a statement justifying the stand taken in Ext.P10. They contend that the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) can be filled up only by direct recruitment from the open open market and there is no provision to appoint in-service candidates as Junior Engineer (Civil). The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 23.11.2008 wherein the petitioner refers to and relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.991 of 2008 to which the Corporation is a party. The petitioner contends that the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision applies to the case on hand also. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. By Ext.P9 judgment, this Court W{(C) 17261/08 -: 3 :- had directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P8 and to take a decision thereon keeping in mind the views expressed by the petitioner's superior officers in Exts.P5 to P7. A reading of Ext.P8 indicates that that the Executive Director (Civil) has considered and disposed of Ext.P8 representation. In my opinion, in view of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the Managing Director of the Corporation himself was bound to consider the petitioner's request and take a decision thereon. Though the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the powers of the Managing Director have been delegated to the Executive Director (Civil), in the light of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment, the Managing Director alone could have passed orders on Ext.P8. On that short ground, I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed and the Managing Director of the Corporation is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation and pass orders thereon, taking note of the views expressed by the petitioner's superior officers in Exts.P5 to P7 and P8(a). The Managing Director of the Corporation shall also bear in mind the views expressed by the Apex Court in the decision in Civil Appeal No.991 of 2008 to which the Corporation is a party. Final orders on Ext.P8 shall be passed within three months on the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the Managing Director W{(C) 17261/08 -: 4 :- of the Corporation. The contentions of the petitioner on the merits are kept open. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 6/12