IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 15522 of 2005(W)
1. BABY GEORGE,
... Petitioner
2. CHERIAN V.C.,
3. SANTHOSH K.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
3. T. CHANDRI,
4. VALSAMMA JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.EASWARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :30/03/2007
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)Nos.15522 & 20111 OF 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of March 2007
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in this writ petition pertains to
grievance regarding promotion to the post of Agricultural
Officers. Petitioners are graduates. 85% of the vacancies are
to be filled up by direct recruitment and the qualification is
graduation. However, 15% vacancies are earmarked to be
filled up by promotion. As per the special rules for promotion
as Agricultural Officer, the graduates should have 3 years
service whereas non-graduates had to pass a test conducted
by Public Service Commission and also they had to be in
Agricultural Assistant Grade-I for a period of three years.
Subsequently, the rules are amended and the non graduates
need only have ten years service as Agricultural Assistant. It
is not necessary that they should be in grade-I. Being
graduates, for the 15% quota they should have been
separately considered at least for a limited quota since non
graduates cannot be treated at par with graduates, it is
W.P.(C)Nos.15522 & 20111 OF 2005
2
submitted. In other words, it is a situation warranting a
classification lest it should violate the guarantee under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. It is seen that the Director of
Agriculture had recommended to the Government the need
for such a classification of graduates and non-graduates in the
matter of promotion to the post of agricultural officer in the
15% quota. The petitioners would further contend that in
various other services, separate treatment is given to the
graduates. It is also submitted that in the general rules when
there are several feeder categories for promotion to a post,
the category with higher pay is to be preferred and the same
principle should be applied in the case of feeder category for
promotion with different qualifications and hence candidates
with higher qualification should be given a preferential
treatment. The matter was considered by this court earlier
leading to judgment dated 5.10.2004 in W.P.(C)No.29127/04
and this court directed the Government to consider the
grievance of graduates in the light of the report of the
W.P.(C)Nos.15522 & 20111 OF 2005
3
Director of Agriculture. The Government passed the
impugned order dated 23.2.2005 rejecting the request of the
petitioners. It is only stated that “the request for maintaining
separate seniority list for graduates and for giving them a
separate quota for promotion are devoid of merit and
therefore the request was rejected”. The recommendation of
the Director of Agriculture is not referred to in the impugned
order. There is no reference as to why the recommendation is
not considered, despite a positive direction issued by this
court in the judgment referred to above.
2. Having regard to the contentions raised by the
petitioners and having regard to the further contention that
in various other services preferential treatment is given to the
graduates and still further having regard to the direction
already issued by this court to consider the recommendation
of the Director of Agriculture, I am of the view that the matter
requires reconsideration by the Government. I quash the
impugned Government Order with a direction to the
W.P.(C)Nos.15522 & 20111 OF 2005
4
Government to pass fresh orders adverting to the contentions
taken by the petitioners some of which are referred to above.
Orders as above shall be passed with notice to the petitioners
and the affected parties within a period of four months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Any promotion
made in the meanwhile will be subject to the decision thus
taken by the Government.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE
jes