IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12337 of 2006(R)
1. REKHA.G,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.,
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
4. SHAINI JOHN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.BENZIR
For Respondent :SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SC,TRACO CABLE LTD.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :26/10/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.12337 of 2006
==================
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2010
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who
are employees of the 1st respondent company, vie with each other for
the post of Confidential Assistant to the Managing Director of the
company. That post is a promotion post from the post of Steno Typist
Grade I. The petitioner entered service as per Ext.P1 order of
appointment on 1.10.1994 as Typist. Her services were regularised by
Ext.P3 order dated 6.4.1995. She was further promoted as Steno
Typist Grade II by Ext.P5 order with effect from 1.1.1998. While so,
the petitioner was again promoted as Steno Typist Grade I by Ext.P12
order with effect from 1.3.2001.
2. The 4th respondent was a PSC recruit. She was appointed
in the Thiruvalla unit as a Steno Typist Grade II on 27.1.1993. She
was temporarily transferred to Irumpanam unit with effect from
21.6.1997 by Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 dated 17.4.1999, she was
permanently absorbed in the Irumpanam unit. According to the
petitioner, in view of Article VIII of Ext.P11 memorandum of
settlement between the unions and the management of the 1st
respondent company, inter-unit transfers shall be resorted to only in
exceptional circumstances and even if resorted to, the transferred
employee will be junior to the existing employees in the same grade of
2
the unit and their posting will not affect the promotion avenues of the
lower category persons in the unit. Therefore, according to the
petitioner, the 4th respondent having been given a transfer to
Irumpanam unit from Thiruvalla unit, she ranks below the petitioner as
junior to the petitioner by virtue of Article VIII of Ext.P11.
Consequently, the 4th respondent could not have been promoted as the
Confidential Assistant to the Managing Director in preference to the
petitioner, is the contention of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore,
seeks the following reliefs:
“(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, Order or
direction directing the 2nd Respondent to consider Ext.P6
representation submitted the Petitioner and pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law within a time limit fixed by this
Hon’ble Court.
(ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, Order or
direction directing the 2nd Respondent to grant notional
promotion to the Petitioner with effect from the date of
occurrence of first vacancy after the date of effect of promotion to
the post of Steno Typist Grade II granted to the Petitioner.
(iii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, Order or
direction directing the 2nd Respondent to grant promotion to the
Petitioner o the post of Confidential Assistant considering the
seniority of the Petitioner.”
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2,
wherein, they take the stand that although Ext.P12 order promoting
the petitioner as Steno Typist Grade I was with effect from 1.3.2001,
by Ext.R1(a) order, the same was kept in abeyance and it continues to
be so even now. That means the petitioner was never promoted as
3
Steno typist Grade I. But pursuant to Ext.R1(b) judgment in W.P.(C).
No.19360/2005, the case of the 4th respondent was reconsidered and
she was absorbed and appointed in the Irumpanam unit as Steno
Typist Grade I with effect from 1.3.2001. They would submit that there
is only one post of Steno Typist Grade I, which was filled up by the 4th
respondent and, therefore, in the cadre of Steno Typist Grade I, the 4th
respondent is senior to the petitioner, because of which, the petitioner
cannot now aspire for promotion to the post of Confidential Assistant
to the Managing Director, which is a promotion post for Steno Typist
Grade I in preference to the 4th respondent, is the contention raised by
respondents 1 and 2.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. From the averments and documents produced before this
Court, it is quite clear that the 4th respondent became Steno Typist
Grade I with effect from 1.3.2001. Although the petitioner was given
promotion as Steno Typist Grade I by Ext.P12 order with effect from
1.3.2001, by Ext.R1(a), the same was kept in abeyance. That means
the petitioner never took charge as Steno Typist Grade I. That fact is
beyond dispute now. The petitioner did not challenge either Ext.R1(a)
or the appointment of the 4th respondent as Steno Typist Grade I with
effect from 1.3.2001. Even in this writ petition filed on 2.5.2006, five
4
years later, the petitioner does not challenge either Ext.R1(a) or the
appointment of the 4th respondent as Steno Typist Grade I, but she
only stakes a claim for promotion for herself. I do not think that such a
belated claim can be entertained to interfere with the promotion
already given to the 4th respondent as Confidential Assistant at this
point of time, especially since the petitioner has not challenged Ext.R1
(a) or the appointment of the 4th respondent as Steno Typist Grade I
even in this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner is guilty of
unexplained delay and laches and accordingly, on that ground, this writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge