Nandakumar S. vs The Kerala State Electricity Board and The Chief Engineer (Human Resources)

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board on 1.11.1993. According to him, he passed the obligatory departmental test which was held on 19.7.1997, the results of which were published on 5.1.1998. Therefore he would contend that he has passed the departmental test with effect from 19.7.1997. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted by Ext. P4 order dated 10.3.1998. But, in the meanwhile, juniors of the petitioner were already promoted by Ext. P5 proceedings dated 22.7.1997. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

(i) To call for the records leading to Ext. P and issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer with effect from 22.7.1997, the date on which his immediate juniors are promoted with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext. P7 and P8 representations in accordance with law and adverting the provisions contained in Rule 28bbb of K.S and S.S.R.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the Board.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition in 2005 claiming promotion with effect from 22.7.1997. I am of opinion that the petitioner has not explained the long delay of 7 years in approaching this Court seeking the said relief. For that reason the writ petition is bad for unexplained delay and laches. Apart from that, promotion cannot be directed in a vacuum. It can only be in a specific vacancy. Admittedly, those vacancies have been filled up by appointing somebody. They have already obtained rights in respect of such vacancies. Therefore, without hearing them, no orders cancelling their promotion can be made so as to accommodate the petitioner in that vacancy. The petitioner has not chosen to implead any of his alleged juniors in this writ petition.

For the above reasons, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.