(1.) The petitioner is a Motor Vehicle Inspector in the Kerala Transport Service. The petitioner is eligible for promotion to the cadre of Joint Regional Transport Officer and further. No disciplinary proceedings or departmental action is pending against the petitioner. According to him, his confidential reports are very good and no adverse remarks have been communicated to him. But the 2nd respondent refused to consider the petitioner for inclusion in the list of persons eligible for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee to be included in the select list, on the ground that a vigilance case is pending against him. According to the petitioner, a vigilance case can be said to be pending against him only when a charge sheet has been framed against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no charge sheet has so far been framed. He relies on the decision of this Court in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala, 2008 (4) KLT 149. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:
(2.) The learned Government Pleader has, today, placed before me the instructions received by the learned Advocate General from the Transport Commissioner himself, which reads thus:
(3.) I am of opinion that the said stand is clearly against Note (i) under Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of K.S and S.S.R relied on by the Transport Commissioner, which reads thus: