IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 26TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5423 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.SHOUKATH BAI, HEAD CLERK, PURAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, KOLLAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 5423 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 15th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is working as Head Clerk in Purakkad Grama Panchayat. She originally entered service as Lower Division Clerk on 15.9.1989. Her probation was declared in 1991. According to her, since she had passed the eligibility test for promotion as U.D.Clerk in June 1991 she should have been considered against the vacancies which arose in 1991. But this was not done and therefore though the petitioner was subsequently promoted in 1997, she sought for reassignment of her date of promotion as U.D Clerk. Exhibits P1 is one such representation. By Exhibit P2 order, the 2nd respondent directed the 3rd respondent to reassign the petitioner’s promotion in the category of U.D Clerk as mentioned therein. Petitioner submits that there is unjustifiable delay on the part of the 3rd respondent in giving effect to Exhibit P2. Though she was subsequently promoted as Head Clerk, if Exhibit P2 is given effect to, she would naturally be entitled to restoration of seniority in the post W.P ( C) No. 5423 of 2008 2 of U.D Clerk and consequent assignment of seniority in the post of Head Clerk also. Exhibit P4 is a representation filed by the petitioner and it is pending before the 3rd respondent. 2. I have heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner Dr.K.P.Satheesan and the learned Government Pleader. 3. There is no reason why appropriate action should not be taken on Exhibit P4 by the 3rd respondent. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action on Exhibit P4 taking note of Exhibit P2, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If any other person will be affected by the decision to be taken on Exhibit P4, she shall also be heard before such a decision is taken. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 5423 of 2008 2 K.THANKAPPAN,J CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999 ORDER W.P ( C) No. 5423 of 2008 2 25th May, 2007