K.G.Prasannakumaran Nair vs State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20704 of 2008(M)


1. K.G.PRASANNAKUMARAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ,ADHAVAN.M., S/O.V.P.AMBU,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PERSONAL MANAGER, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REP. BY

4. THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC, O/O.KPSC,

5. BASHEER.M.B.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU. M.P

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :13/08/2008

 O R D E R
                    P.N.RAVINDRAN, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).20704/2008
                       --------------------
          Dated this the13th day of August, 2008

                        JUDGMENT

By Ext.P1 notification published in the Kerala

Gazette dated 3.6.1986, the Kerala Public Service

Commission invited applications from eligible persons for

appointment as Security Guards in the Travancore-Cochin

Chemicals Limited. The qualifications prescribed for the

post were as follows:-

(1). A pass in S.S.L.C, or its equivalent.

(2). Physical Standards-

(a).Height-163 Cms.

(b). Weight-59Kgs.

(c).Chest-84 Cms, (normal) 89 Cms.

(expanded)

(3). Minimum 5 years service in the Defence

Forces.

2. The petitioners and the fifth respondent applied.

They were selected and appointed after written test and

interview. The first petitioner joined duty on 23.2.1989,

W.P.(C).20704/2008
2

the second petitioner on 13.10.1990 and the fifth

respondent joined duty on 23.5.1989. They were

confirmed in service on 23.12.1990, 13.4.1992 and

23.11.1990 respectively. Nearly 17 years after entry in

service, the petitioners have raised a contention that the

service rendered by the fifth respondent in the Border

Security Force, cannot be reckoned as service in the

Defence forces. This contention is raised relying on

Ext.P4 letter dated 13.11.2007 sent by the State Public

Information Officer of the Kerala Public Service

Commission to the second petitioner wherein it is stated

that service in the Border Security Force is not reckoned

as or equivalent to service in defence forces prescribed

for the post of Security Guards in the Travancore-Cochin

Chemicals Limited. On receipt of Ext.P4, the second

petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 14.5.2008

before the Personal Manager of Travancore-Cochin

Chemicals Limited stating that as the fifth respondent is

not qualified to be appointed as Security Guard, he may

be promoted as Senior Security Officer. This writ

petition was thereafter filed seeking the following

reliefs:-

W.P.(C).20704/2008
3

(i).Call for the records relating to the

appointment of petitioners and 5th

respondent.

(ii).Issue writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ, order or direction

directing the respondents 2 and 3 to follow

the seniority rules in granting promotion

and thereby to promote the petitioners to

the post of Senior Security Inspector in

accordance with their seniority.

(iii). Issue writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction,

declaring that the appointment of

respondent No.5 is illegal and hence he is

not entitled for any legal right including

promotion in furtherance to such

appointment.

(iv).Issue a writ of mandamus or any other

appropriate writ or order or direction,

directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel

the appointment of the respondent No.5 in

the post of Security Guard.

3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a statement as

directed by this Court. It is stated therein that the post

of senior Security Inspector is being held presently by

W.P.(C).20704/2008
4

Sri.Sundarlal, who will retire from service only on

20.6.2010 and therefore the claim of the petitioners for

promotion to the post of Senior Security Inspector is

premature and untenable. Respondents 2 and 3 have

also stated that the fifth respondent who was confirmed

in service on 23.11.1990 is senior to the petitioners who

were confirmed on 23.12.1990 and 30.4.1992

respectively. Going by the materials on record, I am

satisfied that there is no merit in the challenge to the

appointment of the fifth respondent as Security Guard or

the claim made by the petitioners for promotion to the

post of Senior Security Inspector. The petitioners and

the fifth respondent were appointed during the year

1989. The fifth respondent was confirmed in service in

the year 1990. The challenge made by the petitioners

to the selection and appointment of the fifth respondent

as Security Guard in the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals

Limited is highly belated. Even if one were to accept the

contention raised by the petitioners that the fifth

respondent was not qualified to be appointed, his advice

cannot be cancelled at this distance of time even

applying Rule 3(c) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R, 1958.

W.P.(C).20704/2008
5

Therefore, the challenge to the selection and

appointment of the fifth respondent as Security Guard

made nearly 19 years back cannot be entertained. As

regards the claim for appointment to the post of Senior

Security Inspector, from the statement filed by

respondents 2 and 3 it is clear that the said post is not

lying vacant. A vacancy in the said post will arise only

on 20.6.2010. In that view of the matter, the petitioners

also cannot claim promotion as Senior Security

Inspector. It is also evident from the pleadings that the

fifth respondent is senior to the petitioners in service.

For that reason also, they cannot claim any right over

the fifth respondent. Having regard to the facts stated

above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition.

The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge

mrcs