IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33722 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. C.RAMACHANDRAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, I.C.D.S., CHERPU, THRISSUR. 2. K.RAVINDRAN ACHARY,HEAD ACCOUNTANT, I.C.D.S. MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.R.PRADEEPAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, I.C.D.S., OLLURKKARA, THRISSUR. 4. V.N.PRAKASAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT, I.C.D.S., ADMALI, IDUKKI. 5. RAMADAS T.K., U.D. CLERK, PROGRAMME OFFICE, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 33722 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners belong to the category of ministerial staff in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala. They are aggrieved by Ext. P3 Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Service and Ext. P4 Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare Subordinate Service. According to the petitioners, the said Special Rules are unconstitutional to the extent they do not provide for any promotional avenues for male ministerial staff in the Department. Airing their grievances, they have filed Ext. P5 representation before the 1st respondent. For the present, they would be satisfied with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5 expeditiously. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. If the allegation of the petitioners that no promotional avenues are provided for male ministerial staff in the Special Rulesm is true, I am of opinion that the petitioners have a prima facie case of arbitrariness and discrimination against the special rules. It is settled law that it is the duty of the State to provide for promotional avenues to Government employees. If Special Rules are framed, which do not provide for promotional avenues for a particular section of employees alone, the petitioners can certainly make out a prima facie case of arbitrarinesses and discrimination. I am of opinion that this aspect has to be considered by the Government in detail. In the above circumstances, I dispose of tis writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioners detailed in Ext. P 5 and take a final decision on the same W.P.C. No. 33722/2010 -: 2 :- as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.