MOHANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to the cadre of Industries Extension Officer. The next higher post of Industries Extension Officer is Assistant District Industries Officer. The latter post is a selection post. Therefore, the Department Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) has to prepare a select list of persons eligible to be included for each year for promotion to the post of Assistant District Industries Officer. Ext.P-1 select list was published for the year 2002. Petitioner's name was included in that list as serial No. 12. However, petitioner was not promoted from that list. May be for the reason that sufficient number of vacancies did not actually arise in the year 2002. In the select list prepared for the year 2003, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P-2 along with the Writ Petition, petitioner's name was not included. Against his non-inclusion, he filed objection before the departmental authorities. While so, Ext.P-3 revised list of Industries Extension Officers, entitled for promotion for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 was published by the 2nd respondent. In that list, petitioner's name was included for the year 2003 as Serial No. 3. Serial Nos. 1 and 2 are respondent Nos. 4 & 5. The petitioner points out that, respondents 4 & 5 are not included in Ext.P-1 select list for the year 2003, initially prepared by the D.P.C. in which the petitioner was included as Serial No. 12. Aggrieved by the lower rank assigned to the petitioner in Ext.P-3, he has filed this Writ Petition. He has sought for quashing Exts.P-3 as also P-4 by which respondents Nos. 4 & 5 were promoted in preference to him and Ext.P-8 order rejecting the request made by the petitioner for inclusion of his name in the list as Serial No. 1 in preference to respondents Nos. 4 & 5 and for granting him promotion in preference to the said respondents. Incidental reliefs have been prayed for in this Writ Petition.

(2.) Though notice has been served on respondents Nos. 4 & 5, there is no appearance for the said respondents. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the statutory provisions contained in Rule 28 of the Kerala State Subordinate Service Rules (for short 'the Rules'), particularly Rule 28(b)(9) and Rule 28(b)(7) Note (ii) to Sub-rule (11) of Rule 28 of the aforesaid Rules submits that, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 ought not to have been included in the select list for the year 2003 in preference to the petitioner because the petitioner's name was included in the select list for the year 2003 by the D.P.C.