High Court Kerala High Court

Sanalkumar B.S. vs The Chief Engineer (Hrm) on 2 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sanalkumar B.S. vs The Chief Engineer (Hrm) on 2 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1806 of 2010()


1. SANALKUMAR B.S., AGED 45 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

3. SREEKUMAR T.K., AGED 46 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :02/11/2010

 O R D E R
    J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                        W.A. No. 1806 of 2010
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

Ramachandra Menon, J.

The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment rendered

by the learned Single Judge whereby interference was declined

observing that the claim for promotion to the post of Sub

Engineer with retrospective effect from the date as assigned vide

Ext.P3 is highly belated. The claim of the appellant is that the

appellant ought to have been promoted before giving promotion

to his juniors and that by virtue of the contents of Ext.P2 Board

Order, the appellant who was working as ‘Overseer’ ought to

have been promoted as ‘Sub Engineer’ with effect from

15.11.2004, on completion of ‘five years’ in the post of Overseer.

It was in the said circumstances that the appellant sought to

approach this Court (along with another petitioner) by filing the

writ petition with reference to the eligibility for further promotion

as Assistant Engineer.

2. Obviously, Ext.P3 order promoting the petitioner

as Sub Engineer with effect from 27.04.2005 was issued on

W.A. No. 1806 of 2010
-:2:-

03.08.2006, whereas the Writ Petition was filed only after 3 years

in 2010. After considering the materials on record, the learned

Single Judge observed that the claim put forth by the appellant

was stale and accordingly interference was declined under Article

226 of the Constitution. We do not find any reason to interfere

with the said verdict which is perfectly in order. In the said

circumstances interference is declined and the writ appeal is

dismissed.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.

vns