IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15296 of 2008(U)
1. C.K.MURALIDHARAN, VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
... Petitioner
2. K.K.CHANDINI, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT
Vs
1. THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES
... Respondent
2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA KHADI AND
3. R.RAJASEKHARA KURUP, PROJECT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 15296 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are presently working as Village Industries Officer and
Technical Assistant (Khadi) in the 1st respondent. They aspire for
promotion to the post of Project Officer. Appointment to the said post is by
selection. Petitioners contend that a select list therefore should have been
published by the competent authority in which case the petitioners also
would have been considered by the DPC. This has not been done. By
Exhibit P2, 3rd respondent was promoted as project Officer, though the 3rd
respondent is junior to the 1st petitioner. Exhibit P3 representation has
been filed in this regard before the Board.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this was
a case where DPC has not considered his case and not a case where they
have considered the case but decided to supersede the petitioners. It is
further pointed out that 3rd respondent is due to retire on 31.5.2008 and
another Project Officer Smt. Laila Beevi is also due to retire on 31.5.2008.
Two vacancies are therefore scheduled to arise on 1.6.2008 in the post of
Project Officer. Taking note of the fact that the 1st petitioner’s seniority
was overlooked and going by the version of the petitioners that they were
W.P ( C) No. 15296 of 2008
2
not considered for promotion, petitioners case ought to be considered by
the Board as such.
3. Learned standing counsel for the Board Sri.K.P.Harish
submits that if petitioners have been overlooked, they have a remedy
before the Board in terms of Regulation No.25 of the Kerala Khadi and
Village Industries Board (Classification and Conditions of Recruitment of
Staff) 2006. The said submission is recorded.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the
post of Project Officer in the next arising vacancy scheduled to arise on
1.6.2008. Decision may therefore be taken by the 1st respondent before
the vacancies are filled up. Further, the 1st respondent shall consider the
case of the petitioners that they were unjustifiably superseded in the
promotion of the 3rd respondent effected under Exhibit P2. Decision on
that aspect may be taken within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 15296 of 2008
2