S. BAIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent. The grievance in this original petition is against Exhibit P2 order passed by the Tribunal in M.A.(Ekm) No. 274/2014 in O.A. No. 800/2014. The petitioner herein is one of the applicants in the O.A. The applicants in the O.A. had filed the above M.A. seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A12(b) order dated 24.07.2014. In that M.A., the Tribunal has passed Exhibit P2 order dated 12.08.2014 staying Annexure-A12(b) order and also directing that further proceedings for promotion shall be put on hold pending final hearing of the O.A. The petitioner states that his name has already been cleared by the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department and that since he is due to retire on 30.09.2014, the order of the Tribunal preventing further promotions will result in his loosing promotional opportunity. It is with that grievance, this original petition is filed.

(2.) The Tribunal has already stayed Annexure-A12(b) order and Annexure-A12(b) order was issued by the Government in substitution of Annexure-A12 order, which is already stayed by the Tribunal. It was in view of the contention that Annexure-A12(b) order also suffers from various defects which were similar to those pointed out in respect of Annexure-A12, the Tribunal has passed Exhibit P2 order. In the said order, the Tribunal prevented further promotions mainly to avoid unnecessary controversies in the matter.

(3.) These facts, therefore, show that the Tribunal is yet to pronounce final orders on Annexure-A12 or Annexure-A12(b). In such a situation, if the Tribunal thought it appropriate that further promotions should also be kept on hold in the meanwhile, we do not feel that there is an illegal exercise of power justifying interference with Exhibit P2 order. Therefore, we do not propose to interfere with Exhibit P2 order. Be that as it may, the fact remains that if the stalemate continues, petitioner will be a victim of the circumstances, inasmuch as, before his retirement at the end of this month, he will not enjoy the benefit of promotion, though his name has already been cleared by the DPC for promotion. In such circumstances, we feel that the matter needs an expeditious disposal. When this was pointed out, learned Government Pleader and learned senior counsel appearing for the third respondent undertook before this Court that both of them will file their counter-affidavits in the amended O.A. on or before 16.09.2014. Taking note of this undertaking, we direct that the Tribunal shall pass final orders in the O.A. on or before 22.09.2014.