AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 234 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondents in granting promotion to the juniors to the petitioner, i.e., respondents no. 5 to
8.
The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition stating that the respondents no. 5 to 7 have been granted promotion on the special drive
conducted for promotion for reserved category and respondents no. 5 to 7 are the candidates belonging to reserved category. The name of respondent
no.8 was included mistakenly by assuming that he belonged to the reserved category and therefore subsequently his appointment order has also been
withdrawn.
Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner herein belongs to general category and since there was no promotional process initiated for
general category, the petitioner could not be granted promotion nor could the petitioner have any grievance on the promotion of the private
respondents.
This being the factual matrix of the case it appears that the petitioner thereafter has lost interest in contesting the case after going through the reply
filed by the State Government.
When the matter was called out twice there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Under the circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss the present writ petition for want of prosecution.
The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed for want of prosecution.