Dismissed

Sunil Kumar.K.S. v. Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

Kerala HC15 Jan 2008WP(C)/1183/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala addressed a writ petition filed by an employee seeking permission to participate in a promotion interview. The petitioner missed the interview in 2007, and the company policy barred consideration for one year. The Court held it cannot override the company's policy regarding absence, directing the petitioner to approach the competent authority for condonation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed subject to liberty for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for condonation of absence.

Sunil Kumar.K.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 1183 of 2008(N) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

K.S.SUNIL KUMAR, T.NO.6205, CHEMIST (FIELD), PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT, H.O.C.LTD., AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.ABDUL SALAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, (PHENOL DIVISION), AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

THE CHIEF MANAGER (PERSONAL), H.O.C.L. AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

THE CHIEF MANAGER (PRODUCTION), H.O.C.L., AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

MANOJ S.MANI, T.NO.6231, CHEMIST GRADE-II, PRODUCTION DEPARTMENT, H.O.C.L., AMBALAMUGAL.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI,J.

¶19

W.P ( C) No.1183 of 2008

¶20

Dated this the 15^th January, 2008

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner is a Chemist Gr.II in the Department of Production, Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd, Ambalamugal - the 1^st respondent herein. An exercise for up-gradation of persons working as Chemical Operator Gr.I to the post of Assistant Plant Engineer (Shift) was undertaken in May, 2007. Exhibit P4 shows that petitioner was asked to attend an interview on 3.5.2007. Admittedly he did not attend the interview. According to him, he could not do so due to unavoidable personal reasons. On 11.5.2007, that is after the interview he submitted Exhibit P5 requesting one more opportunity to attend the interview. Petitioner contends that nothing was done thereafter. This writ petition was filed on 9.1.2008 praying for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for promotion to the post of Assistant Plant Engineer (Shift) in the selection undertaken in January, 2008.

¶23

W.P ( C) No.1183 of 2008

¶24

¶25

Learned standing counsel for the 1^st respondent, on instruction, submits that the petitioner had attended duty on all days continuously from the 1^st of May , 2007 to 11^th of May 2007. But he did not attend the interview on 3.5.2007. It was presumed that he is not interested in participating in the selection process for up-gradation to the post of Asst. Plant Engineer (Shift). As per the promotion policy prevalent in the 1^st respondent Company, if a person does not participate in the selection then he will not be considered for the next one year. Petitioner will be considered in the selection that may be undertaken after May,2008. Copy of a letter given by the petitioner to the Chief Manager on 7.1.2008 is produced before me by Mr. Lokhithakshan, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, which shows that the petitioner had apparently pleaded his absence of intimation as a reason for not attending the interview held on 3.5.2007. The reason for his absence on 3.5.2007 as given in Exhibit P5 is different.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abdul Salam and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that this Court cannot issue a

¶27

W.P ( C) No.1183 of 2008

¶28

¶29

direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for selection to the post of Assistant Plant Engineer (Shift) ignoring the absence of the petitioner on 3.5.2007. If the petitioner was absent then such absent is regulated by the provisions of the Promotion Policy. If there are grounds for condonation that is a matter to be looked into by the appropriate authority. The petitioner may move the competent authority - the 1^st respondent for condonation of his absence on 3.5.2007 and if power is vested in the competent authority to condone such absence, suitable remedial action may be taken by him. Subject to such liberty, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶31

¶32

W.P ( C) No.1183 of 2008

¶33

¶34

K.THANKAPPAN,J

¶35

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

¶36

ORDER

¶37

25^th May, 2007

Sunil Kumar.K.S. v. Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar.K.S. v. Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.N.Mohanadasan Vs Dr.Shylaja

M.a.Mohammed Ali Vs Rajeev Sadanandan

Maram Veettil Sobha Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Devakumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Vijayakumar & Another Vs J.Sathyadas & Others

Sini Thomas Vs State of Kerala and Others