SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that has come up for consideration, is as to whether the select list of Lecturers in Instrument Technology, Government Polytechnics, prepared for promotion to the category of Head of Section, is in conformity with law. The petitioner and the fourth respondent are at present working as Lecturers in Instrument Technology. They had been appointed on the same day. By virtue of his higher rank and advice by the Public Service Commission, the fourth respondent had always been considered as senior to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had been taking effort for a promotion. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Ext. P2 judgment in O.P. No. 34044 of 2000, when he had challenged the steps for filling up of the vacancy by direct recruitment. The Original Petition filed as above had been disposed of by this Court by observing that at the time when the vacancy arose in 1995 there were no qualified hands for promotion available and therefore steps for direct recruitment could be validly proceeded with. However, the claim of the petitioner for promotion to any vacancies that might arise after he became qualified had been left open.

(2.) Evidently, when the vacancy had arisen thereafter, the petitioner had again filed O.P. No. 15199 of 2003. This was on a complaint that he had been placed below the fourth respondent in the list published by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) dated 21.4.2003. The Court had not adverted to the merits of the case, but had directed the authorities concerned to examine the objections which had been pleaded by him. Ext. P7 is the consequential order passed by the State.

(3.) The Government, by order dated 28.10.2003, had held that since the DPC had taken due notice of all aspects, including the settled seniority of officers in the feeder category, a change in the select list was not warranted. The petitioners claim was therefore rejected. Ext. P7 is therefore subjected to challenge. Also under challenge is the basic proceedings, viz., Ext. P1 notification dated 21.4.2003, to the extent that in the select list of Head of Section in Instrument Technology for 2002, the fourth respondent has been conferred a position of rank No. 1, whereas the petitioner is given only the second position. We may examine the rival contentions in brief.