K.G.Manojkumar v. Institute Of Human Resources Development
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WA.No. 2565 of 2015 () IN WP(C).36747/2010 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36747/2010 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22/09/2015 APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
------------------------------------------ K.G.MANOJKUMAR S/O.K.T.GOPALAN, KOKKATTU HOUSE, PULLADU P.O. THIRUVALLA (TECHNICIAN GRADE II COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, ATTINGAL.
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:: ------------------------------------------------
1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 14, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. THE DIRECTOR INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 14. R BY SRI.V.A.MOHAMMED, SC, IHRD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.V ASHA, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------- W.A No.2565 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2015
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The appellant filed the Writ Petition, essentially claiming retrospectivity to his promotion to the post of Technician Grade II, in the 10% quota from the post of Workshop Assistant. According to the appellant, vacancies were available from 2002 and he got qualified on 25.08.2005, but was promoted by Ext.P9 order only with effect from 01.09.2007. In these circumstances, he represented for promotion with effect from the date on which he became qualified. When that representation was not responded to, the Writ Petition was filed and the learned Single Judge having negatived the claim, this appeal is filed. 2.
On hearing the parties, we notice that the claim made by the appellant in his representation, evidenced by Ext.P11
W.A No.2565 of 2015 submitted to the 2nd respondent, is still remaining unattended. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers the said claim.
Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 - the representation made by the appellant claiming retrospectivity to his promotion, untrammeled by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. With this observation, the Writ Appeal is disposed of Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC Judge Sd/- P.V.ASHA Judge rtr/ /true copy/ P.S to Judge