IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23393 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.RAFI, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAVUR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PREPARING THE SELECT LIST OF SUB INSPECTORS FIT FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23393 OF 2010 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Sub Inspector of Police aspiring for promotion to the post of Circle Inspector of Police. In 2007, when Ext. P2 select list was published, he was superceded for the reason that he was undergoing a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. In appeal, that punishment was modified as one of censure as per Ext.P3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 against Ext.P2. 2. Subsequently, in 2009 when Ext.P9 select list was published by the DPC, petitioner was superceded relying on Ext.P5 order of punishment. However, according to the petitioner, at the time when the DPC was held, by Ext.P7 order, the punishment was already modified to one of censure. Therefore, aggrieved by Ext.P9, he filed Ext.P10. 3. Both Exts.P4 and P10, which are filed by the petitioner against Exts.P2 and P9 select lists are pending before the 3rd respondent. In this writ petition, what the petitioner is seeking is review of Exts.P2 and P9 and his inclusion in the WPC No. 23393/10 :2 : select lists. Still having regard to the pendency of Exts.P4 and P10, I feel it is only appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent, the Convenor of the DPC to consider these representations. 4. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P4 and P10 filed by the petitioner and a decision thereon shall be taken at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of the decisions, if necessary, consequential orders will also be passed. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp