K.SISUPALAN v. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM PRODUCT LTD
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In my opinion in such circumstances, it is not possible toread into Ext.P1, any admission by the respondents that the petitioner isthe next person eligible to be promoted. The petitioner has furnishedonly the answer given to him by the Public Information Officer. He hasnot…
Judgment
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.-----------------------------W.P(C) No.17696 of 2009-F ------------------------------Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009.J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.R.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Smt. Latha Krishnan, the learned standing counselappearing for the respondents.
The petitioner, who is presently working as Senior ProcessOperator in Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., has filed this writ petitionseeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the GeneralManager, Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. to promote him to the postof Supervisor (Production). The petitioner contends relying on Ext.P1reply sent by the Public Information Officer of Travancore TitaniumProducts Ltd. that the next promotion post for a Senior Process Operatoris Supervisor (Production), that no vacancy presently exists and that asand when vacancies arise, he will be considered for promotion. Relyingon Ext.P1 the petitioner contends that he is entitled to be promoted tothe post of Supervisor (Production). Smt. Latha Krishnan, the learnedstanding counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructionsthat Ext.P1 is only a reply given to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that there are 13 persons senior to the petitionerin service and that the reply given to him in Ext.P1 has to be understood W.P(C) No.17696 of 2009-F2in the light of the said factual position.
In my opinion in such circumstances, it is not possible toread into Ext.P1, any admission by the respondents that the petitioner isthe next person eligible to be promoted. The petitioner has furnishedonly the answer given to him by the Public Information Officer. He hasnot produced the letter sent by him wherein he had asked for theinformation. Therefore in the light of submission made by the learnedstanding counsel, I am not persuaded to agree with the petitioner that byreason of the statement in Ext.P1 he is entitled to be promoted. In viewof the fact that there are 13 persons senior to the petitioner awaitingpromotion, the petitioner cannot claim promotion overlooking hisseniors. The persons who are senior to the petitioner are not in the partyarray. Therefore it would not be just and proper for this Court toentertain this writ petition and grant the relief prayed for. The writpetition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-P.N.RAVINDRANJUDGE //True Copy//PA to Judgeab
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right toInformation Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 27 Jul 2009. The bench was P N RAVINDRAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.