IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 25565 of 2006(R)
1. K.MOHANAN, ASST.DIRECTOR (BALLISTICS),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :19/07/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH , J
==================================
W.P.(C) NO. 25565 OF 2006
==================================
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order
or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P9 and
P10 and quash the same to the limited extent they deny
inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the select list of
Scientific Assistant for promotion as Assistant Director
(Balistics) for the year 1995 towards the vacancy which
arose as per Ext.P1.
ii. declare that the petitioner is entitled for inclusion in the
select list of Scientific Assistants (Ballistics) for
promotion as Asst. Director (Ballistics) in the Forensic
Laboratory for the year 1995 and also for promotion in
the vacancy which arose as per Ext.P1.
iii. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 3 to
include the petitioner’s name in the Select list of
Scientific Assistant (Ballistics) fit for promotion Assistant
Director (Ballistics) in the Forensic Science Laboratory
for the year 1995 and promote him as Assistant Director
(Ballistics) with effect from the date of occurrence of
vacancy as per Ext.P1 with all consequential benefits
including arrears of salary, seniority and consequential
retrospective promotion as Joint Director forthwith.
W.P.(C) No. 25565/2006 : 2 :
2. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the suspension
period has been regularised for all purposes as duty. It is also
stated in the counter affidavit that only due to the suspension
followed by the disciplinary action, the D.P.C did not consider his
name. Now that snag has been removed as per Ext.P6, the
petitioner is entitled to be considered for retrospective promotion
to the post of Assistant Director in respect of vacancies which
arose as per Ext.P1. As far as further promotion is concerned,
he should complete two years service from the date of his initial
appointment as Assistant Director. By the time of such deemed
duty also, the petitioner cannot stake any claim over the 4th
respondent since the 4th respondent had already been promoted
before the petitioner completed two years of deemed duty as
Assistant Director. Not only that, it is seen that there is Ext.R4
(h) select list of Assistant Directors fit for promotion as Joint
Directors. There is no challenge on that though the petitioner is
excluded and the 4th respondent is included. Therefore, there
arises no question of retrospective promotion of the petitioner
over the 4th respondent in the cadre of Joint Director. However,
W.P.(C) No. 25565/2006 : 3 :
for the inclusion of the petitioner in the 1995 list, the matter
requires reconsideration.
3. In view of the developments referred to above, there will be
a direction to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action in
the matter of retrospective promotion to the post of Assistant
Director in the light of the observations contained in this
judgment within a period of two months from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C) No. 25565/2006 : 4 :