IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12245 of 2010(E)
1. T.ASHOK KUMAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DPC (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT),
3. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
4. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :08/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.12245 of 2010 (E)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 8th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is Assistant Registrar of Fisheries, aspiring
promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar of Fisheries. Vacancy in
the higher post arose on 31/03/2010. Departmental Promotion
Committee was convened on 29/03/2010. Complaining that
though his case was considered, for no valid reason his junior is
going to be promoted, this writ petition was filed.
2. On behalf of the 1st respondent a statement has been
filed. It is stated that though the name of the petitioner along with
three others were considered by the DPC, it was decided not to
recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Deputy Registrar of Fisheries on the ground that the Deputy Director
of Fisheries, Kozhikkode vide Annexure R1(a) letter reported that
disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the petitioner on
allegation of financial irregularities. It is stated that the proceedings
are pending and it is because of the pendency of the proceedings,
WP(C) No.12245/2010
-2-
his junior Smt.K.K.Sulochana was considered and recommended for
promotion.
3. Even if the averments in the statement are accepted, fact
remains that even during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings,
an Officer is eligible to be considered for promotion and in such a
case, what is to be done is to adopt sealed cover procedure. In this
case, the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent discloses
that such a course of action was not adopted. Therefore,
necessarily, it calls for convening of review DPC. Accordingly, the
2nd respondent is directed to convene a review DPC and consider the
case of the petitioner for promotion adopting the sealed cover
procedure in his case. This shall be done as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within one month of production of a copy of
this judgment.
4. At the same time, disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner, which was the reason stated for the
petitioner’s supersession, also has to be finalised. Going by the
statement, as memo of charges was served on the petitioner on
15/01/2008, necessarily, the proceedings has to be expedited.
WP(C) No.12245/2010
-3-
Taking into account the submission made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that his explanation to the memo of charges has
already been filed, it is directed that the 4th respondent shall take
steps for expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings
initiated against the petitioner and that the same shall be
concluded, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy
of this judgment.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before
respondents 2 & 4 for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.