SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Vishnu S. S/o A. Sasidharan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Babu D. S/o C.B. Divakaran Nair – Respondent
OP (KAT) No. 359 of 2025
Decided On : 10-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : P. Nandakumar, Amrutha Sanjeev, Vivek Vijayakumar
For the Respondents: G. Sivasankar, A.J. Vargjese, Gayathri S.B.

Ongoing disciplinary proceedings prevent inclusion in promotion select lists; temporary promotions can be made, emphasizing timely assessment of eligibility and merits for vacant posts.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Promotion disputes - The petitioner, Deputy Superintendent, challenges Tribunal's interim orders regarding promotion to Joint Superintendent due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against the senior officer. The court upheld Tribunal's dismissal of one application, while setting aside the indefinite vacancy order by stating it adversely affects next senior person in the select list. (Paras 3, 8, 9)

(B) Promotion Regulations - Rule 28(b)(i)(7) KS & SSR - Specifies officers under pending disciplinary proceedings are not to be included in the promotion select list, allowing for temporary filling by the next person in rank. (Paras 6, 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, included in a select list for Joint Superintendent, contested interim orders promoting the first respondent pending disciplinary proceedings against him.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that keeping a promotional post vacant indefinitely is detrimental, emphasizing the proper assessment must be conducted by the Tribunal regarding the promotion's legality and merits.

Issues: The crucial issue was whether the Tribunal could order an indefinite vacancy for promotions considering ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that promoting a junior officer is valid unless the senior officer is fully exonerated, thereby ruling that the Tribunal must reconsider its blanket order regarding the promotion post.

Result: Original petition allowed partially, setting aside the indefinite vacancy order.

Table of Content
1. overview of dispute and parties' details. (Para 1 , 2)
2. tribunal's orders regarding interim promotions. (Para 3 , 4)
3. hearing of the petition and counsel's submissions. (Para 5)
4. arguments regarding disciplinary proceedings and eligibility. (Para 6 , 7)
5. court's reasoning on promotion rules and interim orders. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. This original petition is filed by the 5th respondent in O.A.No.130 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the ’Tribunal’), challenging Exts.P7 and P8 interim orders dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.Nos.1249 of 2025 and 1269 of 2025 respectively, in that Original Application.

2. As per the pleadings in the Original Petition, the petitioner is presently working as Deputy Superintendent at Central Prison, Poojapura, Thiruvananthapuram. His name has been included in the select list dated 04.06.2025 for promotion to the post of Joint Superintendent for the year 2025. The 1st respondent is the senior-most Deputy Superintendent, who has been superseded from being included in that select list due to the pendency of a criminal case and disciplinary proceedings against him. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.130 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that he is eligible and entitled to be promoted as Joint Superintendent with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior in Annexure A1 seniority list dated 27.04.2019. In the Original Application, the 1st respondent has also sought for a direction against respondents 2 to 5 herein to grant retrospective promotion to him as Joint Superintendent with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate junior with all service and monetary benefits. The 1st respondent sought an interim order to provisionally promote him to the said post during the pendency of the original application. The Tribunal adjourned the matter to get instructions as to the status of the disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent. Then the 1st respondent approached this Court by filing OP(KAT)No.257 of 2025. By Annexure R5(d) judgment dated 17.06.2025, this Court disposed of that original petition by granting an interim order for a period of six weeks. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of that judgment read thus;

"2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that a select list to the post of Joint Superintendent has been prepared by the DPC, and the following persons have been considered for the promotion.

S. No.Name of Officer
1Sri. Jijesh E.V.
2Sri. Aneesh C.S.
3Sri. Vishnu S.

3. Considering the above, we passed the following order on 12.06.2025.

"We direct that one post of Joint Superintendent in Prisons & Correctional Services Department shall be kept vacant and shall not be filled up based on G.O. (P) no.73/2025/HOME Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 04-06-2025 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home & Vigilance Department) without further orders from this Court."

4. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the above interim order can be retained for a period of six weeks, The petitioner, in the meanwhile, shall implead the aforesaid persons before the Tribunal. The petitioner is free to seek extension of above interim order before the Tribunal. This original petition is disposed of as above."

3. In pursuance to Annexure R5(d) judgment, by Ext.P7 interim order dated 23.07.2025 in M.A.No.1249 of 2025, which is an application filed by the petitioner herein seeking an order to vacate the interim order dated 12.06.2025 passed by this Court, it was held by the Tribunal that evidently since the order dated 12.06.2025 was passed by this Court, the Tribunal cannot modify the said order. Therefore, that interlocutory application was dismissed by the Tribunal.

4. The 1st respondent filed M.A.No.1269 of 2025 before the Tribunal seeking extension of the i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top