IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 728 of 2007(J)
1. P.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN,ASST.CO-ORDINATOR(EC
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
3. THE ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT
4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :08/01/2007
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.728 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is borne on the cadre of Extension Officer,
Housing Grade I which is re-designated as Joint Block Development
Officer (Rural Housing) in the Rural Development Department. It is
stated that the petitioner is duly qualified and is entitled to be
considered for promotion to the post of Block Development Officer
which is a selection post. He also contends that his case ought to be
considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for inclusion in
the select list for appointment to the post of Block Development
Officer. On coming to know that his confidential reports were not
placed for the consideration of the DPC, he filed Ext.P4
representation before the second respondent bringing that omission to
the notice of that respondent and requesting to do the needful. But
nothing transpired for sometime. Later on, confidential reports were
made available before the second respondent. However, when the
meeting of the DPC was held on 28.11.2006, the case of the petitioner
was omitted to be considered. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed
Ext.P5 representation requesting to convene a review or adhoc DPC to
W.P.(C)No.728/2007 2
consider his case based on the confidential reports prepared by the
competent authorities, so that his name will be included in the select
list for appointment to the post of BDO after due assessment by the
DPC, in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that to the best of knowledge of the petitioner, the select list
prepared by the DPC which made on 28.11.2006 has not been
approved by the Government and no notification also has been issued.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. In the above circumstances, it is necessary that the first
respondent who is in seisin of the matter, based on Ext.P5
representation, has to consider the grievance of the petitioner
immediately and take appropriate decision. If the petitioner’s case was
omitted to be considered for want of confidential reports being placed
before the DPC which met on 28.11.2006, it would be desirable that a
review or adhoc DPC is held immediately and the petitioner’s case is
also considered as far as possible with such expedition that the
notification is issued including the names of all persons who are duly
entitled to be included in that list. There shall be an order directing
the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 on merits and take appropriate
decision within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
W.P.(C)No.728/2007 3
judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along
with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for
information and compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE
css/
W.P.(C)No.728/2007 4