IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7639 of 2010(D)
1. SUNIL THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONVENER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.7639 OF 2010
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is presently working as an Assistant
Labour Officer Grade II under the Labour Department. He
joined service in the said post on 7.3.2006. Though he had
completed the period of probation on 6.3.2008 it was
declared only as per Ext.P3 dated 23.2.2010 with effect
from 6.1.2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that on
account of the said delay occurred in the matter of
declaration of his probation, his juniors were considered and
included in the select list prepared by Department of
Promotion Committee that met on 16.2.2010. The further
grievance of the petitioner is that it was after the convening
of the said DPC meeting that Ext.P3 was issued. In the
context of the contentions Rule 28(b) (i)(4b) of part II of the
Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 assumes
WPC.7639/10 2
relevance and in the light of the specific provisions
thereunder and in view of the fact that the probation was
declared as per Ext.P3 with effect from 6.1.2009 the
question is whether the claim of the petitioner for inclusion
in the select list by the DPC that met on 16.2.2010 is
genuine and justifiable. It requires serious consideration.
The petitioner had already approached the second
respondent by filing Ext.P2 representation with a prayer to
convene adhoc DPC for considering his claim for inclusion in
the list prepared by the DPC that met on 16.2.2010 for
promotion to the post of Assistant Labour officer Grade II.
2. As noticed herein before, the petitioner has already
approached the second respondent by filing Ext.P2
representation, raising his grievances with respect to the
select list prepared by the DPC that met on 16.2.2010. The
second respondent is competent to look into Ext.P2 and take
appropriate action thereon. In the circumstances, in view of
the observation made earlier, this writ petition is disposed of
WPC.7639/10 3
with a direction to the second respondent to consider and
pass orders on Ext.P2 expeditiously at any rate within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this
judgment.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.
SOU.