The court emphasized the necessity for administrative authorities to consider eligible promotion claims and ensure fair procedural justice in public service promotions.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2026 The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is presently working as Professor and Head of the Department of ENT at the Institute of Integrated Medical Sciences (Government Medical College), Palakkad, challenging the continued denial of retrospective promotion to the post of Professor with effect from the date of eligibility. The petitioner also challenges the restrictive portion of Ext.P5 Government Order, Ext.P6 promotion proceedings, Ext.P9 communication, and the continued non-consideration of Ext.P10 Review Petition.

2. The petitioner entered service as Associate Professor (ENT) pursuant to appointment order dated 27.02.2017 and joined duty on 10.03.2017. Her probation in the cadre was declared with effect from 29.03.2019.

3. In December, 2018, the Medical College issued notification inviting applications for the post of Professor (ENT), followed by constitution of a Selection Committee and conduct of walk-in interview on 07.01.2019. In the Ext.P2 rank list so prepared, the petitioner was placed at Rank No.1 and was the sole eligible candidate. Despite availability of vacancy, no appointment order was issued and the petitioner was compelled to discharge the functions of Head of Department and Professor-in-Charge for several years.

4. After repeated representations and issuance of Ext.P3 UO Note calling for applications in March 2021, the petitioner was constrained to approach the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.1457 of 2021, which was disposed of by order dated 13.09.2021 directing the Government to consider her representation.

5. Pursuant thereto, the Government issued Ext.P5 Government Order authorising the convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee, but confining consideration only prospectively. The DPC thereafter met and the petitioner was promoted as Professor by Ext.P6 proceedings, again only with prospective effect.

6. Aggrieved by denial of retrospective promotion despite her eligibility in the year 2019 and her Rank No.1 position in the selection, the petitioner submitted representations, which were rejected by Ext.P9 communication. The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed Review Petition before the Government on 18.08.2025, seeking reconsideration of the restrictive Government Order and consequential grant of promotion with effect from

29.03.2019, which is pending consideration.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the

1^st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 3.

8. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 Government Order to the extent it restricts the benefit of promotion with prospective effect only. The petitioner states that the petitioner is qualified and is entitled to get promotion with effect from the anterior date. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 Review Petition in this regard.

9. As Ext.P10 is filed by the petitioner seeking to review Ext.P5 Government Order to the extent it gives prospective application only, I am of the view that the 1^st respondent can consider the same and take appropriate decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the

1^st respondent to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent.

Sd/-