Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, 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 petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer working in the 1st respondent authority, is said to have been overlooked to be promoted to the post of Executive Engineer despite his seniority as reflected in Ext.P7. Assailing Ext.P3 select list, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 statutory representation before the 2nd respondent. It appears that acting on the representation of some other employee, the respondent authorities issued Ext.P4 proceedings revising Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even in that revised Ext.P4 proceedings, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. In the light of subsequent Ext.P4 proceedings, once again the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 statutory representation. Complaining that though he submitted Exts.P5 and P8 representations assailing Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings respectively, they have not so far been disposed of by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this Court.
3. In the above factual background, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition stands squarely answered in his favour by the decisions of this Court in Vishnu Namboodiri v. State of Kerala (2000(3) KLT 627) and Shobakumar v. State of Kerala (2004(2) KLT 755).
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent authorities, however, contends that since the authorities have actively been seized of Exts.P5 and P8 statutory representations, it does not call for, at this juncture, any adjudication on merits.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P5 and P8 representations in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending disposal of Exts.P5 and P8 statutory representations, if any further developments are to take place affecting the carrier prospects of the petitioner, they shall be subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the authorities on Exts.P5 and P8 representations. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv