IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2011 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5390 of 2011(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- ANNY G. MOL, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IDAMALAYAR IRRIGATION PROJECT, ANGAMALY. BY ADVS. SRI. ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (I&A), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE FOR PREPARING THE SELECT LIST OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS FIT FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5390 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the Water Resources Department. According to the petitioner, as per Exts.P1 & P1 (a) seniority lists (Ext.P1 (a) is actually only continuation of Ext.P1, but the petitioner has marked it separately as Ext.P1 (a) to emphasise her claim for seniority in the cadre of Superintending Engineer). The petitioner was senior to several persons who were later promoted as Executive Engineer ahead of the petitioner. That happened because no proper seniority list had been published at the relevant time is the petitioner's case. The petitioner submits that therefore the promotion of her juniors ahead of her was a mistake which ought to be corrected now. If that mistake in seniority is now corrected, in the cadre of W.P.(C)No. 5390 of 2011 -2- Executive Engineer also the petitioner is entitled to seniority ahead of her juniors who are now proposed to be promoted as Superintending Engineers. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to forward the name of the petitioner to the 3rd respondent and issue a further direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in accordance with her seniority as reflected in Ext.P1 (a). ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to draw up a seniority list of Executive Engineers before convening the D.P.C. for preparing the Select List for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in accordance with her seniority in the category of Assistant Executive Engineer.” I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. Admittedly the juniors of the petitioner were promoted as Executive Engineers in 2003. The petitioner was promoted as Executive Engineer only as per Ext.P4 order dated 13.08.2004. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge that promotion of her juniors in 2003. Therefore notwithstanding the alleged fact that in the cadre of W.P.(C)No. 5390 of 2011 -3- Assistant Engineer the petitioner was senior to others who have been promoted ahead of her in the cadre of Executive Engineer, she is junior to them in the cadre of Executive Engineer. Therefore it is too late in the day for the petitioner to contend that the promotion of her juniors as Executive Engineer ahead of her was a mistake which needs to be corrected. Even apart from the same the petitioner has not chosen to implead any of her juniors who were promoted as Executive Engineers ahead of her, in this writ petition. Further promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer can only be in accordance with the seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineer. Since the petitioner has not challenged the promotion of her juniors as Executive Engineer ahead of the petitioner and they have already become senior to the petitioner in the cadre of Executive Engineer, I do not think that at this point of time the petitioner can claim that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Superintending Engineer ahead of persons who were her juniors in the cadre of Assistant Executive W.P.(C)No. 5390 of 2011 -4- Engineer who were promoted as Executive Engineer ahead of the petitioner. Therefore there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/