IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25510 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.RAJESH, S/O.RAGHAVAN, OLEDATHU HOUSE, MANAKKADU P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584. (VILLAGE OFFICER, KASARGOD). BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.B.SHAMEERA SRI.T.T.SUDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 33. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SU W.P.C.NO.25510/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI WITH REF.NO.SSI 29454/2009/SSI(2) DT.27.7.2009. P2- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER REFERRED ABOVE DT.8.2.2011. P3- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (GENERAL) KASARGOD. P4- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DT.18.4.2011 BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER. P5- COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RTI ACT DT.5.8.2011. P6- COPY OF THE REPLY FROM THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RE) & STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DT.25.8.2011. P7- COPY OF THE PROMOTION LIST PUBLISHED VIDE THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE WITH A REFERENCE NO. LRE5/40400/2011 DT.17.9.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE SU K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.25510 of 2011-K. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Village Officer. He had been placed under suspension pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against him in connection with a vigilance case while he was working as Village Officer in Idukki district. Later on, he was reinstated in service and he has been continuing in service thereafter. The complaint of the petitioner is that the petitioner's name has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post for the reason that a vigilance case is pending against him. According to the petitioner, pendency of a vigilance case against him is not a ground to deny him the promotion that is legitimately due to him. He has therefore filed Ext.P4 representation. Though Ext.P6 has been issued to the petitioner assuring him that the matter would be considered, there has been no action WP(C).No.25510/2011-K. 2 on Ext.P4 till date, it is contended. 2. The learned Government Pleader has no objection to Ext.P4 being directed to be considered expeditiously. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner detailed in Ext.P4 representation submitted by him in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-