IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18573 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- O.M.SEBANNIZA BEEVI, PRINCIPAL, G.H.S.S., SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. AND THE CONVENER, DPC (HIGHER) FOR HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PIN-695001 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695012 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA -R1, R2 SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, P.S.C-R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18573 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 21st July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Principal (placed) in Government Higher Secondary School, Sreekandapuram in Kannur District. The grievance of the petitioner relates to the overlooking her seniority in the matter of promotion to the post of Principal. According to the petitioner, on account of non-existent reasons the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) that had held on 12.6.2009 and 18.6.2009 overlooked her claim. It is obvious from the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent that the petitioner was so superseded on account of pendency of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against her on the allegations of certain financial misappropriations. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P17 would reveal that the confidential reports as on 6.1.2006 alone were made available before the Departmental Promotion Committee for assessment and as on that date the petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings at all. That apart, even the disciplinary proceedings subsequently initiated against the petitioner was admittedly dropped as per order WP(C).No.18573/2010 2 dated 9.12.2009. Thus, in view of the facts obtained in this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entitlement of the petitioner as on 12.6.2009, the date of first DPC meeting, for getting promotion to the post of Principal has to be looked into and for that purpose the respondents are bound to convene a review DPC. Ext.P17 would reveal that before the DPC that was convened on 12.6.2009, confidential reports relating to 490 persons as on 6.1.2006 were placed. Evidently, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner as on 6.1.2006. Admittedly, even the disciplinary proceeding subsequently initiated against the petitioner was dropped as per order dated 9.12.2009. In short, the supersession of the petitioner on 12.6.2009 and 18.6.2009 could not be sustained. In the said circumstances, respondents are bound to convene a review DCP to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal in Government Higher Secondary School. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take steps to convene a review DPC taking note of the observations made in this judgment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents shall consider the question WP(C).No.18573/2010 3 of consequential benefits based on such decision of the review DPC expeditiously. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS