IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24553 of 2008(W)
1. P.C.SREELATHA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY CUM CONVENER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :14/08/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No. 24553 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 14th August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is presently working as Assistant
Director of Agriculture. The next promotion post is that of
Deputy Director of Agriculture. The petitioner’s grievance
is that overlooking her seniority and merit,her juniors
have been included in Exhibit-P2 select list for promotion
to the cadre of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The
petitioner submits that among the persons selected for
appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture,
Serial Nos. 12 to 27 are her juniors and that for no
justifiable reason she was not considered for promotion to
the post of Deputy Director or included in the select list.
The petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P3 representation to
the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee
objecting to the non-inclusion of her name in the select
list and seeking revision of the select list under Rule 28
(b) (i) (8) (a) of Part II of the K.S.& S.S.R. The learned
W.P ( C) No. 24553 of 2008
2
counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit-P3
representation was submitted to the Convener of the
Departmental Promotion Committee within one month from
the date on which Exhibit-P2 select list was published in the
official gazette.
2. When the writ petition came up for admission
today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
as the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee
is yet to take a decision in the matter the writ petition may
be disposed of with a direction to the second respondent,
the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee to
consider Exhibit-P3 and pass orders thereon within a time
limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned counsel for the
petitioner also submitted that the petitioner may be
permitted to supplement Exhibit-P3 by filing an additional
representation.
3. I have heard Smt.M.R. Sreelatha, the learned
Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
also. Rule 28 (b) (i) (8) (a) of Part II of the K.S. & S.S.R
enables the officer whose name has not been included in
W.P ( C) No. 24553 of 2008
3
the select list to make a written representation to the
Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee to
revise the select list and to include his/her name therein.
It is a statutory remedy available to an employee in the
event of supersession. As the petitioner has availed that
remedy and within the time prescribed therefor, it cannot
be rendered infructuous by the delay in its disposal. In my
opinion, the grievance voiced by the petitioner in Exhibit-P3
merits consideration at the hands of the second respondent.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of
with a direction to the second respondent to consider
Exhibit-P3 and the further representation which the
petitioner shall file within two days from today and pass
necessary orders thereon, within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the
second respondent, for compliance.
(P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No. 24553 of 2008
4
W.P ( C) No. 24553 of 2008
5