AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner is working as Lecturer in Computer Engineering in Government Polytechnic, Attingal. Ext.P1 seniority list was issued in which the petitioner is included as serial No. 3. It is stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee (Lower) for selection to the post of Lecturer was held in 2008 and Ext.P2 select list was published. In Ext.P2, only one person was included. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 34252 of 2008. It is stated that after the disposal of that Writ Petition, a reply was given to the petitioner stating that there was only one vacancy of Lecturer in Computer Engineering for the year 2006 and the eligible candidate was promoted. It is stated that the petitioner came to know that there were other vacancies of Lecturer in Computer Engineering during the relevant period and that the reply given was not correct. The petitioner relies on Exts.P4 and P5 in support of his contention. On the basis of Exts.P4 and P5, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the second respondent, Director of Technical Education. The petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in Computer Engineering as per Ext.P10 dated 20.11.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner should have been promoted as Lecturer in Computer Engineering with effect from 10.3.2006 as two vacancies were available during that period and the petitioner was eligible and qualified to be promoted. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioner is not considered and disposed of by the second respondent.
The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following:
(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to grant promotion to the petitioner as Lecturer in Computer Engineer since 10.3.2006 with all attendant benefits.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the second respondent to effectively consider and pass appropriate orders upon Ext.P6 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a time limit in the light of Exts.94 and P5.
(iii) pass such other order or direction which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the time being, it is sufficient if relief No. (ii) is granted.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:
(a) The second respondent, the Director of Technical Education, shall consider and dispose of Ext.P6 representation dated 18.5.2010, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party.
(b) The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition and certified copy of the judgment before the second respondent.