IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1905 of 2009()
1. SUBRATA BANGA, AGED 57 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF HEAD QUARTERS
... Respondent
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.T.SANJAY, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/10/2009
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A.No.1905 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph,J.
Appellant is the petitioner. He approached this
court seeking a direction for promotion to the post of Senior
Commandant. According to the petitioner in view of Ext.P3
clarification regarding colour blindness, he cannot be
disqualified on that ground. He claims that he is eligible on
other counts also. The writ petition was disposed of by
judgment dated 1-6-2009 directing the first respondent to
consider Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner in that
regard. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed this writ appeal
stating that there should have been a positive direction in
view of Ext.P3 to promote the petitioner. We find that even
before filing the writ appeal the appellant-petitioner had been
transferred to Dhanbad. That apart, as per Annexure 1 order,
Ext.P5 representation had already been disposed of stating
that the DPC had considered the case of the petitioner along
W.A.No.1905 of 2009
-:2:-
with other eligible officers, but he was assessed unfit. Whether
the assessment of “unfit” is only on account of colour blindness is
not clear. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel submits
that in view of Annexure 1 dated 9-6-2009, unless that
communication is challenged, the petitioner cannot have an
independent relief in the writ appeal. We are afraid that the
contention cannot be appreciated. The judgment of the learned
single Judge to consider Ext.P5 is dated 1-6-2009. Ext.P5 is
dated 17-3-2009. In Annexure 1 it is stated that the DPC met on
23-2-2009. Evidently Ext.P5 has not been considered in the
above factual background by the first respondent. Since
Annexure 1 is dated 17-3-2009 and since the judgment is dated
1-6-2009 and since the DPC meeting was on 23-2-2009,
necessarily Ext.P5 will have to be considered independently as
directed by the learned single Judge in the judgment dated
1-6-2009. The reply given in Annexure 1 is not in compliance
with the judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner seeks for an
opportunity for hearing also. Having regard to the entire facts
W.A.No.1905 of 2009
-:3:-
and circumstances of the case, at the time of consideration of the
representation an opportunity for hearing shall be given to the
petitioner.
Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal directing the first
respondent to consider Ext.P5 on merits ignoring the reply dated
9-6-2009 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with
law after giving an opportunity for hearing to the appellant-
petitioner. It is made clear that while passing orders as above,
the contention on colour blindness with regard to Ext.P3 will also
be considered by the first respondent.
(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)
(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ahg.
KURIAN JOSEPH &
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
—————————
W.A.No.1905 of 2009
—————————-
JUDGMENT
13th October, 2009