IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10066 of 2008(W) PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. A.N.RAJAPPAN PILLAI, S/O.NEELAKANTA PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAJ BHAVAN, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O. 2. G.MOHANAN, RESIDING AT VADAKANEZHATHU, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE AUTOKAST LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S.N.PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. M.D.JOSEPH, ASST.ENGINEER, AUTOKAST LTD, CHERTHALA. 3. D.V.MURUGAN, ASST.ENGINEER, AUTOKAST LTD, CHERTHALA. WP(C).No. 10066 of 2008(W) 2 4. SASIDHARAN, ASST.ENGINEER, AUTOKAST LTD, CHERTHALA. 5. N.RAMESH BABU, ASST.ENGINEER, AUTOKAST LTD, CHERTHALA. 6. P.K.KUNJAN, ASST.ENGINEER, AUTOKAST LTD, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10066 of 2008 W ------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Electrician and Fitter in the Autokast Limited, the 1st respondent. They are eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The said post is a selection post and promotion is to be effected in terms of the broad criteria contained in Ext.P1 promotion policy. On 26.5.2007, the 1st respondent issued a notice inviting applications from eligible candidates, inter alia, for 6 number of vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer. It is stated therein that the selection will be done by awarding marks for educational qualifications, performance appraisal in the written test and interview. Out of a maximum of 100, the mark-s set apart for interview is 15. The petitioners applied for and participated in the written test. They were called for interview. The contesting respondents had also participated in the written test and interview. Ultimately, the contesting respondents were selected and promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. The W.P.(C).NO.10066/08 :: 2 :: petitioners were not selected. They made a complaint against this before the Management, pointing out that the persons selected are juniors to them. The complaints were considered and rejected. Hence this writ petition. 2. Pursuant to a request made by this court, the records relating to the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer was made available by the standing counsel for the 1st respondent. I have perused the same. The standing counsel has also made available a copy of the notice proposing selection to the post of Assistant Engineer, issued by the Deputy Manager (HRD &A) on 26.5.2007. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.G.Sukumara Menon and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri.K.Anand. 4. As noted above, I have perused the files relating to the selection to the post of Assistant Engineer. I have seen the marks sheet also. I find that marks have been awarded to candidates in the broad categories as notified in the notice dated 26.5.2007. There does not seem to be any case of undue favouritism shown to some W.P.(C).NO.10066/08 :: 3 :: candidates on certain other candidates being ignored as such. I also take of the submission made by Sri.Anand that there are no specific allegations of mala fides in this case. 5. In the result, I do not find any reason not to accept the contention of the 1st respondent that the selection was properly done in this case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even assuming that the selection of the contesting respondents do not warrant any interference, it is a fact that there are four vacancies of Assistant Engineers, which are still available and therefore, there is no reason why the petitioners should not be accommodated against the said vacancies, even going by the marks obtained by them. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that separate selection will have to be undertaken to fill up those vacancies. 7. I take note of the fact that only six vacancies in the post of Assistant Engineer (M1) were identified in the original notification issued on 26.5.2007. The selection was undertaken only to the said vacancies. Six W.P.(C).NO.10066/08 :: 4 :: persons, who secured the maximum marks in the selection, were promoted. There is no rule which compels the the Management to go down the list and fill up the vacancies which have not been notified, by the persons who had already participated in the selection. The management will be entitled to conduct a fresh selection, which is not prohibited. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the selection process. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge