IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 7267 of 2008(M)
1. A.T.THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS OUSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.JUSTINE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/03/2008
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.7267 OF 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner joined the KSRTC as a Conductor in the year
2000. The petitioner applied for category change as a Store
Issuer on health grounds. The KSRTC considered the request of
the petitioner and allowed him to work as a Store Issuer from
1.6.2000 onwards. The petitioner has been working as Store
Issuer from 1.6.2000 onwards accordingly.
2. Now the petitioner challenges the validity of the
category change itself on the ground that, for that category
change no concurrence has been granted by the PSC. He
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i) Call for the records of this case:
ii) Declare that no valid category change
was taken place as Store Issuer in the case of the
petitioner.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction to the
respondents to repost the petitioners as
Conductors with effect from the dates on which
he was directed to work as Store Issuer from
1.6.2000 onwards, with all consequential benefits.”
W.P. ) No.7267/08 2
2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for
the following reasons:
The petitioner himself applied for the category change
and the Corporation granted the same. The petitioner worked
in the post of Store Issuer all along. Now the petitioner seeks
to go back as Conductor with effect from the original date on
the ground that the PSC has not given concurrence. I do not
think that the petitioner’s contention can be countenanced.
Even if there is no concurrence from the PSC, if the prayers of
the petitioner are granted, it would be grossly unjust, in so far
as the petitioner would be eligible for getting the salary of
Conductor and all service benefits including promotion etc.,
without actually working as Conductor. Therefore I am not
inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P. ) No.7267/08 3