IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10345 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANIKANTAN NAIR.A, MOTOR MECHANIC, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT SUKUMARI MANDIRAM, T.C 9/1547, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE HEALTH TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AMEERUDEEN, MOTOR MECHANIC, D M O H, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.10345 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Motor Mechanic under the Health Services Department. He is an engineering diploma holder and he possesses a valid driving licence. According to the petitioner, he is fully qualified for being promoted to the post of Foreman Mechanic. The contention of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is not fully qualified for promotion to the aforesaid post as he is not possessing the required driving licence which is essential for appointment to the post of Foreman Mechanic. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in spite of the aforesaid fact, the fourth respondent would be preferred in the matter of promotion. 2. Qualifications have been prescribed for promotion to the post of Foreman Mechanic. There is no reason for this Court to believe that the respondent authorities will not look into the provisions under the relevant rules while effecting promotions to the post of Foreman Mechanic. In that view of the matter, according to me, the Writ Petition is premature. In case W.P.(C) NO.10345/2010 2 the fourth respondent is preferred in the matter of promotion, overlooking the alleged legitimate claim of the petitioner, he will be at liberty to challenge it at the proper time in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.10345/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.10345/2010 JUDGMENT 5th April, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.10345/2010 4