SANALKUMAR B.S. Vs. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby interference was declined observing that the claim for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer with retrospective effect from the date as assigned vide Ext.P3 is highly belated. The claim of the appellant is that the appellant ought to have been promoted before giving promotion to his juniors and that by virtue of the contents of Ext.P2 Board Order, the appellant who was working as 'Overseer' ought to have been promoted as 'Sub Engineer' with effect from 15.11.2004, on completion of 'five years' in the post of Overseer. It was in the said circumstances that the appellant sought to approach this Court (along with another petitioner) by filing the writ petition with reference to the eligibility for further promotion as Assistant Engineer.

(2.) OBVIOUSLY , Ext.P3 order promoting the petitioner as Sub Engineer with effect from 27.04.2005 was issued on 03.08.2006, whereas the Writ Petition was filed only after 3 years in 2010. After considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge observed that the claim put forth by the appellant was state and accordingly interference was declined under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said verdict which is perfectly in order. In the said circumstances interference is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed.