Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, 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, having initially joined the service of the second respondent Water Authority in 1986 as Assistant Engineer, got promoted in 1992 as Assistant Executive Engineer. In course of time, the respondent authority convened a Departmental Promotion Committee through Ext.P12 to promote suitable candidates from the rank of Assistant Executive Engineer to the rank of Executive Engineer in nine identified vacancies.
3. As could be seen from the record, the petitioner was placed at sl.no.10 in the rank list. It is the contention of the petitioner that three persons above him in the rank list have been on leave without allowance and as such, their cases were not considered for promotion. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, his case was not considered on the ground that a memo has been issued to the petitioner in connection with the alleged unauthorized tapping of water in Hotel Chola International. It appears that based on the said charge, the petitioner has been bypassed to be considered for promotion, and instead persons who are juniors to him in the rank list have been considered.
4. Aggrieved by the non consideration of his candidature for the promotional post of Executive Engineer, the petitioner is said to have submitted Ext.P13 statutory representation to the first respondent. Complaining of its non-disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the charges reflected against the petitioner are clearly unsustainable. In so far as the first charge is concerned, long back a departmental enquiry was conducted resulting in a finding that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. The fourth respondent is yet to take a decision, though the issue has been pending for the last 12 years. Concerning the second charge, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Vigilance Committee of the second respondent enquired into the issue and through Ext.P11 recommended that there is no lapse on the part of the officers including the petitioner. Even the said recommendation of the Vigilance Committee is also pending with the second respondent.
6. Be that as it may, in the light of the pendency of the statutory representation, Ext.P13, this Court is not inclined to advert to the merits of the case. It will suffice, if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider Ext.P13, in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the present writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P13 statutory representation filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard in person to him and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, if any promotions are to be affected based on Ext.P12 proceedings, they shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the first respondent in response to Ext.P13 representation submitted by the petitioner.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE