IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2465 of 2009()
1. T.BABU, OVERSEER, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL
... Petitioner
2. K.BALAMURALI, OVERSEER, THRISSUR
3. C.RAMACHANDRAN, OVERSEER, THRISSUR
Vs
1. THE DIRECTOROF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
... Respondent
2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION ELECTRICITY
3. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
4. K.A.ANIL KUMAR, OVERSEER, THRISSUR
5. P.BABU, OVERSEER, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :08/02/2010
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
W.A. No.2465 of 2009
----------------------------------------------
Dated 8th February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The writ petitioners are the appellants. They are
working in the electricity wing of the Thrissur Municipal
Corporation. They joined service as Line Assistants. Later, the
unqualified Line Assistants from among them were provisionally
promoted as Overseers, by Exts.P1 and P2 orders dated
29.11.2007 and 26.11.2007 respectively. As per Ext.P3, a draft
list of persons eligible for promotion as Overseers was published.
Later, Ext.P4 final list was also published. The appellants were
not included in Ext.P4. Therefore, they apprehended that they
may be reverted. In the above background, the Writ Petition was
filed, challenging Ext.P4 list and seeking a direction, not to revert
them. Though initially, there was an interim stay against the
reversion, the learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides,
declined to extend it. Challenging the said order of the learned
Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is preferred.
2. We notice that the learned Single Judge has
ordered that the reversion of the petitioners will be subject to the
WA NO.2465/09 2
result of the Writ Petition. Going by Exts.P1 and P2, it is clear
that they were promoted only provisionally and their promotions
were subject to review also. Therefore, if they were reverted
upon review, the same cannot be said to be prima facie an order
outside jurisdiction. So, we find nothing wrong with the interim
order passed by the learned Single Judge, warranting interference
in the Writ Appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
But, it is made clear that this judgment will not affect the
contentions of the petitioners/appellants in the Writ Petition.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
tgs
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
———————————————-
W.A. No.2465 of 2009
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 8th February, 2010.