Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the first petitioner, an Accounts Officer; second and third petitioners, LD Clerks; petitioners 4 and 5, Electricians; and petitioners 6 and 7, working as Khalasi, are the permanent employees of the Kerala Institute of Local Administration, Thrissur, the second respondent. When the second respondent submitted Recruitment Rules, as have been approved by the Executive Council, for approval, the Government through Exhibit P4 Government Order, dated 07.02.2007, approved them.
3. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioners that in W.P.(c) No. 25072 of 2010 2 the promotions to be effected by the second respondent in terms of Exhibit P4 Service Rules, the petitioners may not be considered though they have been eminently suited to be promoted. Accordingly, they have approached this Court.
4. It seems that the writ petition is filed based on an apprehension. This Court does not have any doubt that the authority acts in accordance with law. Having expressed that, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition by only stating the obvious.
5. In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of Exhibit P4 promotional policy as and when their names are considered for promotion.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE