IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14519 of 2010(L)
1. PONNAPPAN.C.K,AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE
3. SHRI.V.K.AMBUJAKSHAN PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/05/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.14519 OF 2010 (L)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Deputy Director in the Department of Tourism.
He claimed promotion to the post of Joint Director. According to
the petitioner, he is qualified and is eligible. It is contended that a
vacancy arose on 19.4.2001 and that the DPC is going to be held
and the 3rd respondent who is unqualified is going to be
considered for promotion. It is with this grievance the writ petition
is filed.
2. On behalf of the 3rd respondent Senior Counsel
submitted that the qualifications for the post of Joint Director
inter alia requires one year training which can be acquired only by
deputation. It is stated that in 2008-2009, while all the candidates
in the feeder category of Deputy Director were eligible to be
deputed, two senior employees including the 3rd respondent were
not relieved in the exigencies of service. It is stated that the
petitioner was accordingly deputed for training and that he
completed the training. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent
was deputed for training in the year 2009-2010 and has
WPC.No. 14519/2010
:2 :
successfully completed the training.
3. According to the learned Sr. counsel when the vacancy
arose apprehending that the 3rd respondent will be excluded from
consideration, he filed WP(c).NO.11144/2010 before this court
and an interim order was obtained, directing that his case shall
also be considered when other cases are taken up for
consideration. It is stated that it was pursuant to that direction of
this court, when DPC was held his claim was considered and he
was included in the select list, which was also published.
4. Evidently, the submission made by the 3rd respondent
reveals that he was asserting his eligibility to be considered and
obtained an order from this court in WP(c)No.11144/2010.
requiring the respondents to consider his case also for promotion.
In such circumstances if the petitioner has a case that the 3rd
respondent is ineligible, the remedy available to the petitioner is
to get himself impleaded in the writ petition filed by the 3rd
respondent and seek to get the order passed by this court
vacated, rather than filing other writ petition seeking conflicting
orders.
WPC.No. 14519/2010
:3 :
Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek
appropriate orders in WP(C).No.11144/2010 and without
expressing anything on the merits of the contentions raised, this
writ petition is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/