IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33596 of 2005(Y)
1. G.SATHYASEELAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
3. REVEENDRAN PILLAI P.,
4. PAPPACHEN P.V.,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
--------------------------
Dated this the 22nd December,2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered service of the Government of
Kerala in the Revenue Department as a Second Grade
Surveyor on 17.5.1972. He was promoted as Head
Surveyor on 20.7.2000. He was later promoted as
Superintendent of Survey on 29.6.2005. In the post of
Head Surveyor, the petitioner was senior to respondents 3
and 4. By Ext.P6, the petitioner was assigned the date of
promotion as Superintendent of Survey as 1.9.2002.
Overlooking the seniority of the petitioner, respondents 3
and 4 were promoted as Assistant Director and then as
Deputy Director. The petitioner is aggrieved by such
supersession in the matter of promotion and therefore he
is seeking the following reliefs.
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the 2nd respondent
to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre
of Superintendent Assistant Director and Deputy
Director above 3rd and 4th respondents and
grant him all consequential benefits arising
therefrom.
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
2
ii. Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the respondents to
promote the petitioner provisionally as Deputy
Director of Survey with immediate effect since
his juniors have been promoted as per Ext.P9
order;
iii Issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus to the 1st respondent to convene a
proper D.P.C and to issue select list for
promotion as Assistant Director and Deputy
Director of Survey with entitled dates with all
consequential benefits including fixation of pay
and arrears of salary.”
2. Petitioner contends that by Ext.P9, respondents
3 and 4 who were juniors to the petitioner in service were
promoted ahead of the petitioner as Assistant Director and
Deputy Director, which is unsustainable. He further
submits that although there were vacancies, the petitioner
was not promoted as Deputy Director.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st
respondent contending that although the petitioner was
senior to respondents 3 and 4 in the post of Head Surveyor,
he became junior to them in the post of Superintendent of
Survey since he did not satisfactorily complete the
probation in the post of Head Surveyor before respondents
3 and 4, consequent to which respondents 3 and 4
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
3
happened to be promoted earlier than the petitioner in the
post of Superintendent of Survey. Therefore, in the cadre
of Superintendent of Survey, respondents 3 and 4 became
senior to the petitioner and consequently for promotion to
the post of Assistant Director and Deputy Director,
respondents 3 and 4 had to be considered ahead of the
petitioner which only was done. It is also denied in the
counter affidavit that there was any vacancy to which the
petitioner could have been promoted before his date of
retirement on 31.5.2006.
4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
5. Admittedly, respondents 3 and 4 were promoted
to the cadre of Superintendent of Survey ahead of the
petitioner years ago. Petitioner did not care to challenge
their promotion at the right time. As such, it is too late
the day for the petitioner to contend that respondents 3
and 4 could not have been promoted in the post of
Assistant Director and Deputy Director ahead of the
petitioner. The petitioner could not produce any
satisfactory materials on record to prove before me that
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
4
petitioner was denied promotion to a vacancy which arose
before his retirement on 31.5.2006. Without a vacancy, the
petitioner cannot seek a direction to promote him.
In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the
prayer for promotion of the petitioner prior to his date of
retirement also. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ
petition and accordingly the same is dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ma
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
5
W.P ( C) No.33596 of 2005
6