IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30978 of 2009(N)
1. K.K.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
3. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
4. M.J.THRESIAMMA,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U.
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.30978 of 2009 (N)
Dated,-------------------------- 2009
this the 30th day of November,
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner joined service as 2nd grade Overseer in the
Panchayat Common Service. After joining service in 1983, he was
promoted as 1st grade Overseer in 1987. According to the
petitioner in Ext.P1 seniority list, he was at Serial No.4, while the 4th
respondent was at Serial No.5, and was thus junior to him.
2. While continuing as such, by Ext.P3 representation made
by the petitioner on 23/02/1994, he sought promotion to the post
of Assistant Engineer in a vacancy that was available at Meenangadi
Panchayat. Without promoting him, by Ext.P4 order dated
24/02/1994, 4th respondent was promoted as Assistant Engineer.
Subsequently, the petitioner was also promoted as Assistant
Engineer with effect from 16/11/2001. The 4th respondent
continued in service and retired in 2003, and the petitioner also is
due to retire in March, 2010.
3. According to the petitioner, he came to know that the
promotion of the 4th respondent as Assistant Engineer given by
WP(C) No.30978/2009
-2-
Ext.P4 order dated 24/02/1994 was erroneous, only in February,
2008, and that immediately thereafter, he made Exts.P9 & P10
representations requesting promotion with effect from the date on
which the 4th respondent was promoted. No response was
forthcoming and therefore, he made Ext.P11 representation to the
5th respondent. Both these representations have not been acted
upon and it is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed
seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the
representations.
4. As already noticed, the case now set up by the petitioner
is that the promotion of the 4th respondent ordered by Ext.P4 dated
24/02/1994 as Assistant Engineer was erroneous. This contention
is highly belated, but is sought to be explained by stating that the
petitioner came to know of this irregularity in the promotion only in
February, 2008. However, there is nothing to substantiate the case
of the petitioner that he came to know of the irregularity in the
promotion of the 4th respondent only in February, 2008. Therefore,
I am inclined to think that this Court will not be justified in directing
consideration of the belated representations filed by the petitioner,
WP(C) No.30978/2009
-3-
contending that the promotion granted to the 4th respondent way
back in February, 1994 is irregular.
Therefore, on account of the delay, I am not inclined to
entertain the writ petition, and it is dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg