IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 33140 of 2003(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- V.GOVINDARU, SCIENTIST-C (GEOINFORMATICS), CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY, CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY (C-DIT), CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY(C-DIT) CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. 3. M.R.MOHANACHANDRAN, SCIENTIST/ENGINEER-C (CIVIL), CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF IMAGING TECHNOLOGY, CHITRANJALI STUDIO COMPLEX, THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL, SC, C-DIT R1 i R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH, SC, C-DIT R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM AND BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33140 of 2003(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C-DIT/01/PRO//97/1130 DATED 20.12.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C-DIT/01/PRO/2000/1335 DATED 24.03.2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C-DIT/01/PRO/96/1085 DATED 04.07.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C-DIT/DP/HG/97 DATED 23.12.1998 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF SCHEME FOR ASSESSMENT PROMOTION AND RULES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.C-DIT/3/ADMN/03 DATED 22.04.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.C-DIT ADMN/152/03 DATED 06.10.2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 23.06.1997 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(b) : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.07.1997 RELIEVING THE 3RD RESPONDENT FROM THE POST OF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER (CIVIL) /TRUE COPY/ P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ........................................................................ W.P.(C) No. 33140 OF 2003 ......................................................................... Dated this the 10th February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Sustainability of Ext. P7 order passed by the first respondent granting promotion to the third respondent as Scientist E1 is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Scientist Gr-C. vide Ext. P1 order dated 20.12.1997 on contract basis and he was regularised in service with effect from 01.12.1997 vide Ext. P2 order dated 24.03.2000. The third respondent was appointed as Deputy Director (Systems & Services), which is stated as an equivalent post to Scientist Gr.C , with effect from 04.07.1997 by Ext. P3 order. The grievance exposed in the Writ Petition is that, despite initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent by issuing Ext. P4 notice, he has been given promotion to the next higher grade even without completing the requisite minimum service of five years' in the feeder category, W.P.(C) No. 33140 OF 2003 2 which is allegedly contrary to Ext.P5 rules for promotion. The petitioner has got a further grievance that at the time of issuance of Ext. P6 and Ext.P7, though he was duly qualified, he was not called for the assessment process. 3. On going through the materials on record, including the statement filed by the first respondent, the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent and also the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the extent of dispute is confined to two aspects. Firstly, whether the first respondent was right in considering the case of the third respondent for assessment process, which led to Ext. P7 and secondly, whether the first respondent is justified in not considering the petitioner when Exts.P6 and P7 were issued. 4. It is seen from the records that the third respondent was appointed as Scientist Gr.B in 1991; that he was promoted to the next higher grade of Scientist Gr.C and was regularised in the said post with effect from 01.06.1995. By virtue of the said promotion/placement, it is contended by the third respondent W.P.(C) No. 33140 OF 2003 3 that he became eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade w.e.f. 01.06.2000 in accordance with Ext.P5 promotion rules. It is further submitted that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the third respondent vide Ext. P4 memo were dropped way back in December, 2002, as stated in paragraph No.4 of the statement filed by the first respondent. Since the petitioner does not have a case that the statement made by the first respondent as to the dropping of the disciplinary proceedings against the third respondent is not correct, there is absolutely no bar for considering the third respondent for promotion in accordance with Ext. P2 rules. As such, the challenge raised by the petitioner against the promotion granted to the third respondent stating that he does not have the requisite minimum five years' standing in the feeder category does not hold any water at all. 5. With regard to the case of the petitioner that he was not called for the assessment process when the third respondent was considered, leading to Ext .P6 and P7 and projecting the W.P.(C) No. 33140 OF 2003 4 same as discriminatory, it is submitted from the part of the first respondent that the petitioner was not eligible to be called for the said assessment process, for the plain reason that the petitioner was admittedly promoted as Scientist Gr-C only on 01.12.1997 and he would have become qualified after acquiring a minimum five years' service in the feeder category only on 01.12.2002. But the fact remains that the cut-off date notified for the purpose of above promotion was '01.04.2002', on which date, the petitioner did not satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement. Obviously, the petitioner does not have a case that the fixation of cut-off date as '01.04.2002' is not correct or that it is contrary to the norms provided under Ext. P5 rules. So long as there is no challenge against fixation of the cut-off date, the challenge raised in respect of denial of opportunity for not being considered for promotion, when the first respondent considered the third respondent vide Exts.P6 and P7 is without any pith or substance. W.P.(C) No. 33140 OF 2003 5 Considering the above circumstances, this Court does not find any grounds for interference. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk