IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 26492 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VINODKUMAR.G, FORMAN (RUBBER), COMMON FACILITY SERVICE CENTRE, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.RASHMI RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 26492/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.103/15449/00 PASSED BY THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT DATED 11.8.2000. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION CERTIFICATE NO.EC3/25578/02 DATED 27.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ED3.8970/10 DATED 1.9.2011. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.CFSC.251/2011 DATED 12.9.2011. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ED.3.8978/10 DATED 20.10.2010. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.7.2009 BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ED3/8970/10 DATED 30.9.2011. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO (RT) 500/2010/ID DATED 08.04.2010 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE dnc K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(c)No. 26492 of 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P7 order by which he has been reverted to the post of Electrician Higher Grade with effect from 01.09.2011. The petitioner was working as an Electrician at the Common Facility Centre, Manjeri, while so he was promoted as Foreman(Rubber) and posted to the Common Facility Centre, Changanassery by Ext.P3. Pursuant to the said order, he joined the higher post on 13.09.2011 and has been working as such ever since. In the above circumstances, he has been served with Ext.P7 order of reversion, referred to above. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, he has been reverted without giving an opportunity to be heard. According to him Ext.P7 order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 4. A reading of Ext.P7 order shows that the same has been issued for the reason that though the petitioner had been granted a promotion, on a further review thereof, it was found W.P(c)No. 26492 of 2011 2 that the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted. Since Exts.P6 and P7 have been issued for the reason that the petitioner had been promoted by mistake to a post which he was not qualified to hold, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not qualified for promotion to the post of Foreman (Rubber) as per the Special Rules, in many cases, the Government have granted promotion, subject to revision of the Special Rules. Reliance is placed on Ext.P8 Government Order. However, I do not think the petitioner can claim any relief in this Writ Petition on the basis of Ext.P8. It is for the first respondent to decide whether such a promotion should be granted or not. The claim of the petitioner is for an objective consideration of Ext.P6. Therefore, it is sufficient that the first respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 in accordance with law. 6. This Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P6 in accordance with law, as W.P(c)No. 26492 of 2011 3 expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent shall transmit Exhibit-P6 to the first respondent immediately, for such consideration. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a supplementary representation and also to produce any additional document, if he so desires. sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE /True copy/ P.A.to judge ln