IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13032 of 2008(B)
1. N.PARVATHY, NURSING SUPDT.,
... Petitioner
2. T.O.MEERA, NURSING SUPDT.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.S.VINEETH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :02/07/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.13032 of 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 2nd July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners retired as Nursing Superintendent Gr.II
on 28.2.2007. They were aspiring for promotion to the
post of Nursing Superintendent Gr.I. Apparently,
according to them, though they were enough vacancies
they were not promoted and the vacancies were kept
unfilled. Their request for provisional promotion was also
not considered. In Exhibit P9 judgment, this court had
directed the petitioners claim for promotion with
reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies to be
considered. It has been so held in Exhibit P9:
“Now the petitioners have retired
from service on 28.2.2007. Petitioner’s
claim under Exhibit-P8 can only be
considered as one for notional promotion
with reference to the date on which the
vacancy arose.
After having heard the learned
Government Pleader also, this writ
petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to look into Exhibit-P8
representation and after hearing the
petitioners take a decision thereon within
W.P ( C) No.13032 of 2008
2
three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment untrammeled by
Exhibit-P7.
2. Pursuant to Exhibit P9, Government has
considered the petitioners case and rejected it under
Exhibit P10. Paragraph 3 of the same reads as follows:
“3. Government have examined the matter
in detail. In the absence of Special Rules and
finalised seniority list in the cadre of Nursing
Superintendent Gr.II, provisional promotions are
being resorted only to meet the exigencies for
filling up the vacancies at the earliest. At the
time of their retirement, they were working in
Kozhikode District as Nursing Superintendent
Gr.II and the proposal for provisional promotion
from Director of Health Services received only
on 19.3.2007. Since the petitioners retired from
service on 28.2.2007, they were not included in
the proposal. As such the petitioner’s request
for promotion on the date of occurrence of
vacancies for which they were eligible cannot be
granted. Hence their request is rejected.
3. It is obvious that Government has not understood
the directions contained in Exhibit P9 judgment. This Court
was aware of the fact that petitioners claim for promotion
to the post of Nursing Superintendent Gr.I could be
considered as only a claim for notional promotion in
circumstances where they had already retired from service
W.P ( C) No.13032 of 2008
3
on 28.2.2007. But nevertheless Government was directed
to consider their claim for promotion with reference to the
date of occurrence of the vacancies. This was after taking
note of fact that they had already retired from service.
Their claim was rejected under Exhibit P10 on the premise
that petitioners had already retired from service on
28.2.2007 and proposal for promotion was received only on
19.3.2008. In my view, there is obvious non-application of
mind.
In the result, Exhibit P10 is set aside and the
Government is directed to pass fresh order in terms of the
directions already issued in Exhibit P9 judgment. Such
order shall be passed within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing
the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.13032 of 2008
4
W.P ( C) No.13032 of 2008
5