IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1087 of 2009()
1. SATHEESH.R,SATHEESH BHAVANAM,NETTIYADU,
... Petitioner
2. S.ANSAR,KINARUVILAYIL HOUSE,PORUKKARA,
3. ANEESH KUMAR.B.G,BUNGLAVIL VEEDU,
4. SUJILAL.S,LAL BHAVAN,CHERUSSERRY BHAGOM,
5. BINU.S,PUTHALATHU HOUSE,PADA SOUTH,
6. FRANCIS XAVIER.G,KANNANGEAZHATHU VEEDU,
7. SHIBU.Y.PANICKER,NELLIVILA PANICKER'S
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED,
For Petitioner :DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 1087 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated 4th June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioners are the appellants. They were applicants for
appointment to the post of Junior Technician-cum-Fitter Trainee under the
2nd respondent Company. They are entitled to get preference in the matter
of appointment, as persons affected by land acquisition made for the
purpose of establishing the industrial unit of the Company. When the 2nd
respondent invited applications for the above post, they applied and they
were included in the wait list. There were 11 candidates in the main list. All
of them were appointed. In fact, there were no vacancies to accommodate
the appellants. But, they found that there are some vacancies in the higher
cadre and if promotions are ordered, the promotees will vacate the lower
post, which may result in vacancies for accommodating them. In the above
factual background, the Writ Petition was filed, seeking appropriate reliefs.
The 2nd respondent resisted the Writ Petition, pointing out that there are no
WA 1087/2009 2
vacancies to accommodate the persons included in the wait list. It was
submitted that the persons in the lower grade are not qualified for promotion
and therefore, the contention of the appellants that on their promotion
vacancies will be available also, is untenable. The learned Single Judge
accepted the above contentions. The appellants also pointed out the steps
taken by the 2nd respondent to make appointments to certain posts, based on
internal selection. The learned Judge also found nothing wrong with that, as
it was observed that internal selection is being made in the absence of any
qualified candidates for promotion from the feeder categories concerned.
2. Based on the above findings, the learned Single Judge declined to
grant any reliefs to the appellants. But, it was ordered that if they have any
grievance, they may move the Government. In that event, the Government
will consider the same. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed.
3. We heard Dr.K.P.Kylasanatha Pillay for the appellants. We notice
that a person included in the rank list or wait list has no right to get
appointment. He has only right to be considered, when vacancies are filled
up. In the case on hand, there are no vacancies. The contention of the
appellants that if the persons in the lower grade are promoted, that may
create vacancies to accommodate them, was also rightly repelled, as, such
WA 1087/2009 3
persons to be promoted were unqualified for promotion. So, we find nothing
illegal with the findings of the learned Single Judge, on the above
contentions of the appellants.
4. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that
though the learned Single Judge permitted the appellants to move the
Government, no time limit was fixed for disposing of their representations.
Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that this Court may fix a time limit for
the Government to consider their representations. It is not the law that if no
time limit is fixed by this Court for doing something, the said direction need
not be obeyed. A Division Bench of this Court in Balakrishna Pisharady
v. K.S.E.B. [1987(2) KLT 937] held that if no time limit is fixed in the
direction issued to the K.S.E.B., the same has to be implemented within a
reasonable time limit. So, in this case, even if there is no time limit, the
Government are bound to consider the representations of the appellants
within a reasonable time limit. That time limit will depend upon the facts
of each case. In some case, it may be three months. In some other case, it
may be one month. So, we are of the view that even if no time limit is fixed,
the Government are bound to dispose of the representations filed by the
appellants within a reasonable time limit and if it is not done, they have a
WA 1087/2009 4
cause of action to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1st respondent.
Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
nm/