IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16451 of 2010(F)
1. A.LEELA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER
3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER)
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :09/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 16451 OF 2010 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Junior Superintendent in the Motor Vehicles
Department, who claims to be eligible for promotion to the post of
Senior Superintendent. According to the petitioner, she has been
included in Ext.P1 select list published on 15/9/2008. It is stated
that despite her inclusion, she was not promoted on account of
the fact that a disciplinary action initiated against several persons
including the petitioner was pending. Petitioner submits that by
Ext.P6 order dated 24/3/2010 issued by the 1st respondent,
disciplinary action against others except the petitioner and
another person has been finalised. It is stated that since
finalisation of the disciplinary action is inordinately delayed, she is
deprived of her chances of getting promotion also.
2. Ext.P6 order shows that the petitioner and six others
were proceeded against, and that disciplinary action in respect of
five of them have been finalised by Ext.P6 and it is stated that
orders in respect of the petitioner and Sri.A.Thomas will be issued
separately.
WPC No. 16451/10
:2 :
3. In view of the above, it is only appropriate that the 1st
respondent should finalise the disciplinary action against the
petitioner and final orders in this behalf should be passed without
any delay. This the 1st respondent shall do, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment. On the basis of the final order to be passed, the claim
of the petitioner for further promotion to the post of Senior
Superintendent shall also be considered by the respondents.
4. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before
respondents 1 and 3 for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp