IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16773 of 2008(V)
1. S.PRINCE, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
... Respondent
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
4. JALAJA, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,
5. K.G.RAMADASAN, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,
6. SUDHEEKRISHNAN,
7. M.THAJUDHEEN, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,
8. PRIYA JAYASENAN,
9. PREETHI, ASSISTANT EXTENSION OFFICER,
10. RAJU ANAND.B.S., ASSISTANT EXTENSION
11. RAMESAN, INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES,
12. S.PADMINI, ASSISTANT EXTENSION OFFICER,
13. K.M.ALIAS, ASSISTANT EXTENSION OFFICER,
14. K.PADMANABHAN,
15. K.K.KUTTAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.D.ASOKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C).No.16773 of 2008 V
-------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of
Fisheries. Promotion to the post of Inspector of Fisheries,
as per the Special Rules, is by way of promotion from Sub
Inspectors, by direct recruitment and appointment by
transfer from among Upper Division Clerks. A ratio of
1:1:1 is prescribed as per the Special Rules. The
petitioner’s grievance is that several Upper Division Clerks
have been posted against interchangeable posts of
Assistant Extension Officer or Technical Assistant and they
are permitted to continue in such posts. Though the
promotion given to the petitioner is provisional subject to
availability of Public Service Commission hands, it is
pointed out that the number of persons who are appointed
to the post of Inspector and as Assistant Extension Officers
or Technical Assistants are far in excess of the 1/3rd quota
that is available to be transferees as such. These facts are
highlighted in Ext.P5 representation to the Director of
Fisheries. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia,
W.P.(C).NO.16773/08
:: 2 ::
seeking a direction to consider Ext.P5 and also to prevent
the reversion of the petitioner as such.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
3. No doubt, if the Special Rules prescribe a
ratio of 1:1:1 among the promotees, direct recruits and
transferees appointed on transfer, then the same will
have to be maintained by the Government and the
appointing authority. But, insofar as the petitioner’s
reversion is concerned, it is clear that it is only to
accommodate the Public Service Commission hands as
such. I cannot, therefore, interdict the Director from
doing so. But the petitioner has highlighted the alleged
excessive posting of Upper Division Clerks appointed as
Assistant Extension Officers or Technical Assistants. This
is a matter that has to be looked into by the Director.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 and take
appropriate action within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there are
W.P.(C).NO.16773/08
:: 3 ::
vacancies in the Fisheries Department, to which the Sub
Inspectors of Fisheries could be accommodated even on a
provisional basis, the petitioner shall be considered
against the same in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V.GIRI)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge