IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MATHEW C KARAKKATTU
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. M. CHACKO, RESIDING AT PAZHAYAPEEDIKAYIL,
HOUSE NO.145, THIRUVALLA P. O., THIRUVALLA - 689 101,
(ELECTRICIAN SKILLED GRADE I, TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.,
IRUMPANAM UNIT, ERNAKULAM - 682 309).
BY ADVS.
M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY
MATHEW VARGHESE
SHINTO THOMAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRACO CABLE CO. LTD., OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
IRUMPANAM, ERNAKULAM - 682 309.
3 A. D. UNNIKRISHNAN
CHARGE HAND, TRACO CABLE CO. LIMITED,
PINARAY UNIT, KANNUR - 670 741.
4 C. T. SIVADASA PANICKER
CHARGE HAND, TRACO CABLE CO. LIMITED,
THIRUVALLA UNIT, THIRUVALLA - 689103.
5 VIJU THOMAS
CHARGE HAND, TRACO CABLE CO. LIMITED,
THIRUVALLA UNIT, THIRUVALLA - 689103.
6 ADDL. R6. THE TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.,
IRUMPANAM, ERNAKULAM- 682 309,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01.04.2022 IN I.A.
NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) 28130/2021.
M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
K.JOHN MATHAI
JOSON MANAVALAN
KURYAN THOMAS
PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
RAJA KANNAN
K.G.SAROJINI-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the order by which the respondents 3 to 5 have been promoted as Foreman.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner as Foreman forthwith.
(iii) To issue a writ, order or direction directing the 2 nd respondent to grant and disburse all financial benefits to the petitioner from the date of promotion of Shri.Ajithkumar.B and Sajikumar as Assistant Managers, without any test or interview"
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 6. Though notice had been taken out to respondents 3 to 5 and duly served, there is no appearance for such respondents.
3. The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner was fully qualified for promotion to the post of Foreman in the 6th respondent-Company and had participated in the selection. However, he was not promoted. The contention was that respondents 3 to 5 do not posses the diploma qualification and that hence, they are not WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021 3 eligible for promotion. The promotions were challenged on the said ground. Thereafter, the petitioner produced the orders of promotion.
4. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the 2 nd respondent. It is contended therein that the qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman from Chargehand are specifically either diploma/post graduation with three years post qualification experience or ITI/graduation with three years experience as Chargehand in the service of the company. It is submitted that respondents 3 to 5 have ITI qualification as well as three years experience as Chargehand in the company and therefore, they are fully eligible for such promotion. It is further contended that the petitioner had participated in the selection process which is governed by Ext.R2(a) promotion policy and that the petitioner had failed to acquire the marks necessary for such promotion. The details of the marks in the two selections are also produced as Exts.R2(b) and R2(c).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the short fall in the performance appraisal was never informed to the petitioner and that the procedure conducted was discriminatory and the marks awarded to WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021 4 the petitioner were doctored so as to deny the promotion. It is further contended that certain benefits made available to other employees have not been given to the petitioner on account of his deputation to the KSBC.
6. I have considered the contentions advanced. The specific case of the petitioner in the writ petition is to the effect that the petitioner was fully qualified for promotion as Foreman and had participated in the selections in 2011, 2015, 2018 and 2020, but had been weeded out in the interview. It was a further contention that respondents 3 to 5 who have been granted promotion and who are juniors to the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification. From the counter affidavit placed on record by the 2nd respondent, it appears that the criteria for promotion are well prescribed. The criteria which are looked into for assessing suitability is not just a test or interview, but the annual appraisal, attendance, discipline, seniority also. With regard to the contention that respondents 3 to 5 are not qualified also, the respondents have averred in the counter affidavit and also produced the qualifications and stated that respondents 3 to 5 are fully qualified to WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021 5 which there is no answer in the reply affidavit. With regard to the contention that the petitioner was not informed of the short fall in the performance appraisal also, I notice that such a contention does not form a part of the grounds raised in the writ petition. I also notice that even in case the said short fall had not been considered, it is highly unlikely that it will have made any difference since the marks obtained by the petitioner as evident from Exts.R2(b) and R2(c) could not lead to a situation that the short fall in the performance appraisal alone would make a difference to the selection.
In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the writ petition cannot succeed. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP WP(C) NO. 28130 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28130/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.99/P&A/6116 DATED 30.10.1989 ISSUED BY THE SR. MANAGER (P&A) OF TRACO CABLE CO. LTD., CALLING UPON THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE INTERVIEW.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.08/JFTC/00/3058 DATED 05.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER, TRACO CABLE CO. LTD. TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.10/P&A/31 DATED 01.01.2018 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SR. MANAGER (P&A) OF TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.10/P&A/1476 DATED 28.09.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.10/P&A/260 DATED 15.02.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE MANAGER (P&A) OF TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION POLICY FOR WORKMEN OF REGISTERED OFFICE/IRIMPANAM UNIT AND THIRUVALLA UNIT DATED NIL ISSUED BY TRACO CABLE COMPANY LTD. ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES (DATED 26.02.2011) Exhibit R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST FOR FOREMAN DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.
Exhibit R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST DATED NIL PUBLISHED BY TRACO CABLE CO. LTD.
Exhibit R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS DATED 30/11/2021 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit R2(E)` TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS DATED 30/11/2011 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit R2(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS DATED 30/11/2021 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT