IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23016 of 2009(V)
1. D.RADHAMMA, RETD.PROJECT OFFICER (COIR)
... Petitioner
2. T.SUMANGALA,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V
------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.M.V.Bose, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are pensioners. They retired from service
on 31.5.2007 and 31.10.2007 respectively, while working as Project
Officers in the Industries Department. While they were in service, the
petitioners had moved the Director of Industries and Commerce seeking
promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Manager. The said requests
were rejected. The decision rejecting the request was communicated to
the first petitioner by Ext.P3 letter dated 9.4.2007 and to the second
petitioner by Ext.P4 letter dated 9.8.2007. The petitioners did not
challenge Exts.P3 and P4 in time. As per the Special Rules in force, the
feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Director/Manager
was Assistant Director. The petitioners were not in the feeder category.
It was for this reason their request for promotion to the category of
Deputy Director/Manager was rejected.
3. Long after the petitioners retired from service, the
Government issued Ext.P5 order wherein inter alia it is stipulated that in
W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V 2
the absence of qualified hands in the category of Assistant Director, the
vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Director/Manager shall be filled up by
candidates who have successfully completed their probation in the
category of Assistant District Industries Officer, in a phased manner.
Thereupon the petitioners again moved the Government seeking
promotion. The said requests were rejected and the decision
communicated to the second petitioner by Ext.P10 letter dated 16.6.2009
and the first petitioner by Ext.P11 letter dated 30.6.2009. In Exts.P10
and P11 the Government have taken the stand that as the revised orders
were issued only on 31.1.2009, the petitioners who retired from service
much prior to the introduction of the new rules, cannot claim promotion.
Exts.P3, P4, P10 and P11 are under challenge in this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended
that as a large number of vacancies of Deputy Director/Manager were in
existence in the Industries Department, the Director of Industries ought
to have considered their request for notional promotion based on Ext.P5
order atleast with reference to the vacancies which were in existence
immediately prior to the date on which the petitioners retired from
service. In my opinion, the said claim is plainly untenable. The post
which the petitioners were holding namely, the post of Project Officer was
equated to the post of Assistant District Industries Officer and made the
W.P(C) No. 23016 of 2009-V 3
feeder category for promotion to the category of Deputy
Director/Manager and that too in the absence of qualified hands in the
category of Assistant Director only long after the petitioners’ retired from
service. In such circumstances the request made by the petitioners was
rightly rejected by the Director of Industries.
I accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The
writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
ab