The petitioner was aggrieved with the denial of promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. When the writ petition was filed, Ext.P1 list of eligible candidates to be considered for promotion, was issued by the Management of the 1st respondent. The petitioner though was entitled to be considered to the promotion of Assistant Manager (Marketing), since disciplinary proceeding was pending, his name was struck off from Ext.P1 list. 2. Subsequent to Ext.P1, promotions were effected and Ext.P2 was the promotion order issued in the case of other persons; in which juniors of the petitioner were also included. The petitioner approached the Arbitration Court with A.R.C.19 of 2009 claiming promotion along with his juniors to the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing). Subsequently, when the A.R.C was pending, the Management, dropped the disciplinary proceedings as per Exts.P3 and P4. The aforesaid writ petition was filed alleging that the Arbitration Court is unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the matter, even when the matter was heard finally. On 07.05.2013, the Arbitration Court had posted the case for orders and had been adjourning the same intermittently, is the contention.
3. The learned Government Pleader was asked to get instructions in the matter and it was submitted that, the matter is posted for disposal on 28.10.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the Management would submit that even today (28.10.2014), the matter has been adjourned to 27.11.2014, again for orders.
4. In the meanwhile, yet another Promotion Committee has been constituted and interview is scheduled to be held on 29.10.2014. The petitioner in the writ petition claims promotion from the post of Assistant Manager, since he ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager even at the time of Ext.P1. However, that issue is pending before the Arbitration Court and definitely he would have his rights reserved, insofar as claiming promotion with retrospective effect on the Arbitration case being concluded in his favour.
5. At present, petitioner cannot be directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Manager since he is working in the feeder category of the promotion post of Assistant Manager. The leaned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the petitioner would definitely be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager on 29.10.2014. In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(a).The petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Marketing) on 29.10.2014.
(b).Petitioner's retrospective promotion, if any, shall depend upon the Arbitration Case.
(c).The Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the 5th respondent herein, is directed to dispose of A.R.C.19 of 2009 and pass orders on the same at any rate, within two months from today.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//