High Court Kerala High Court

Sugathan vs Chief Conservator Of Forest on 27 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sugathan vs Chief Conservator Of Forest on 27 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 977 of 2010(V)


1. SUGATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :27/01/2010

 O R D E R
                           C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
                    --------------------------------------------
                        W.P.(C) NO. 977 OF 2010
                    --------------------------------------------
                  Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a Junior Superintendent under the Social Forestry

Division, Idukki in the Department of Forest and Wild Life. According to

him, he is rank No.27 in Ext.P1 seniority list and on account of the fact

that all the other persons, except one, have either retired or promoted, for

all practical purposes, he holds rank No.2 in the said list. Two vacancies

in the post of Senior Superintendent arose in the Department in July, 2009.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 charge memo

containing certain allegations. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in

the light of the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, initiated as

per Ext.P2, his name would not be considered for promotion to the post of

Senior Superintendent.

2. Going by Note(i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of the Kerala State

and Subordinate Services Rules, there cannot be any basis for such an

apprehension. The said provision contemplates the action to be taken in

W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010 2

such a situation. There is no reason to believe that the competent

authorities would not follow the procedures prescribed in the said Rules.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is premature and it is

accordingly dismissed.

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

sp/

W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010 3

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

W.P.(C) NO. 977/2010

JUDGMENT

27th January, 2010