The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's refusal to direct retrospective promotion. The Court held the petitioner's claim for promotion made years after the relevant order was stale and declined interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ appeal was dismissed and the Single Judge's order was upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932
WA.No. 1806 of 2010 --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24527/2010 Dated 05/08/2010
APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER IN WPC:
SANALKUMAR B.S., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, AISWARYA, VENGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS SUB ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION OFFICE, MANAKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND 2ND PETITIONER IN WPC:
BY STANDING COUNSEL, SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge whereby interference was declined observing that the claim for promotion to the post of Sub Engineer with retrospective effect from the date as assigned vide Ext.P3 is highly belated. The claim of the appellant is that the appellant ought to have been promoted before giving promotion to his juniors and that by virtue of the contents of Ext.P2 Board Order, the appellant who was working as 'Overseer' ought to have been promoted as 'Sub Engineer' with effect from 15.11.2004, on completion of 'five years' in the post of Overseer. It was in the said circumstances that the appellant sought to approach this Court (along with another petitioner) by filing the writ petition with reference to the eligibility for further promotion as Assistant Engineer.
as Sub Engineer with effect from 27.04.2005 was issued on
W.A. No. 1806 of 2010
-:2:-
03.08.2006, whereas the Writ Petition was filed only after 3 years in 2010. After considering the materials on record, the learned Single Judge observed that the claim put forth by the appellant was stale and accordingly interference was declined under Article 226 of the Constitution. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said verdict which is perfectly in order. In the said circumstances interference is declined and the writ appeal is dismissed.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
vns
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Single Judge's decision to decline promoting a petitioner for seeking delayed promotion.
Whether the claim for promotion made three years after the impugned order is time-barred (stale).
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SANALKUMAR B.S.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
J.CHELAMESWAR
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
