Kerala High Court
Mathew C Karakkattu vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2022
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
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
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
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
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
