IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3175 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- D.RATHEESH,RANGE OFFICER,SOCIAL FORESTRY RANGE,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND WILD LIFE,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER)IN RESPECT OF THE FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR (PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO:3175 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Ranger in the Kerala Forest Service. Because of the pendency of two vigilance cases, petitioner was superseded in the selection held on 9.5.2007 and 27.5.2008 for preparing select list for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that even though he had sought for a reconsideration by Ext.P9 review petition, no orders have been passed so far on it. Ext.P2 is the minutes of the meeting of the DPC dated 9.5.2007. At that point of time, he was involved in two vigilance cases one was CC No.30/2002 pending before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram and other one was VC No.20/94/SIU, which was charge sheeted before the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge. 2. According to the petitioner, two departmental proceedings mentioned in Ext.P2 had actually came to an end as per orders dated 2.3.2007 and 27.2.2007 imposing minor penalties on the petitioner. These orders are evidenced by Exts.P3 and P4. 3. It is also pointed out that as far as CC No.30/2002 is concerned, this case could not have been treated as pending as on the date of the meeting of the DPC because no charge had been wpc:3175 of 2009 2 framed by the Court till 10.7.2008. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, he could not have been superseded. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 review petition seeking for a review in the matter. It is up to the DPC to consider the same and pass final orders in accordance with the rules. Therefore, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P9 and take appropriate action in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the second respondent. While considering Ext.P9, the second respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE bps