IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25684 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- M.GOKUL KUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GSI-P2485, KONGADE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KERALA POLICE CHIEF, KERALA POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THRISSUR RANGE, THRISSUR.680003 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD.678 001. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.25684/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 02.09.2011 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.09.2011SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.25684 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner complains that promotion as a Sub Inspector that is legitimately due to him has been withheld in Ext.P2 for the reason that his probation has not been declared in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police as per Ext.P1 order dated 28.1.2011. The promotion has been ordered with effect from 13.4.2010 against an existing vacancy. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the necessary criteria for being promoted to the next higher post of the Sub Inspector of Police. However, his promotion has been withheld for the sole reason that his probation has not been declared. 2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the proviso to Rule 29(a) Part II KSR, his promotion is not liable to be withheld for the sole reason WPC No.25684 of 2011 2 that his probation has not been declared. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Suseela Devi v PSC (1998 KHC 91). In view of the above legal position, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation to the first respondent, setting out his grievances. He complains that no orders have been passed on Ext.P3 till date. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. Since the complaints of the petitioner in Ext.P3 representation are being considered by the first respondent, it is sufficient that this writ petition is disposed of directing the same to be considered expeditiously. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in his representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P3 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from WPC No.25684 of 2011 3 the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/