IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2315 of 2004(B)
1. K.G.SUGUNA PRASAD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, KERALA,
For Petitioner :SMT.J.SHEEBA MARIAM
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------
W.A.No.2315 of 2004
----------------------------------------
Dated 16th March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. He was a Technical
Assistant in the Fisheries Department at the time of filing the Writ
Petition. His next promotion post in the direct line of promotion is
Superintendent. He is also eligible to be considered for promotion to the
post of Research Officer/Marine Survey Officer/Fresh Water Biologist.
But, for that, he should have minimum five years’ research experience in
any of the institutions of the Fisheries Department. Further, there is a
ratio of 2:1 between Technical Assistants and Research Assistants
for promotion to the post of Research Officer. The petitioner, claiming
promotion to the post of Superintendent or Research Officer preferred
Ext.P4 representation. The said representation was considered and
rejected by the Director of Fisheries by Ext.P5. In Ext.P5, it was stated
that his turn as per the seniority has not reached for promotion to those
posts. Challenging Ext.P5 and seeking consequential reliefs the
Writ Petition was filed. The respondents filed a counter affidavit. In
the said affidavit, an additional ground was taken to support denial
of promotion to him, that was, he did not have the requisite research
W.A.No.2315/2004 2
experience of five years prescribed for promotion to the post of
Research Officer. The respondents admitted that research institutions
under the Fisheries Department were transferred to the Kerala
Agricultural University in 1979. Only some applied research is being
now conducted in the Department. Research Assistants working in
that field are treated as having research experience for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Research Officer, it was submitted. The
learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contention
of the respondents that the appellant/writ petitioner did not have the
requisite research experience and therefore, he cannot be promoted as
Research Officer. Challenging the said decision of the learned Single
Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The
learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no
research in the Department now, the provision for five years’ research
experience for promotion to the post of Research Officer is redundant
and unworkable. Further, he has worked for six years from 1989 to
1995 in the Shrimp Hatchery under the Fisheries Department and
therefore, he should be taken as one having the necessary research
experience. So, the decision of the learned Single Judge may be set
aside, it was prayed.
W.A.No.2315/2004 3
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the
respondents. He took us through the provisions in the Special Rules
and brought to our notice that the appellant can get promotion as
Superintendent without research experience. If he wants to get
promotion as Research Officer, he has to wait according to his turn and
also should acquire research experience in the applied research field
under the Department. But, a Technical Assistant is not working in
that field of research and therefore, he is unqualified for promotion as
Research Officer, it is submitted.
We find nothing wrong with Ext.P5. It only states that the
petitioner has to wait for his turn, according to the ratio for promotion
as Research Officer. But, in the counter affidavit, it was pointed out
that the petitioner did not have the necessary research experience
and only those who are working in applied research field under the
Fisheries Department will be held as having research experience. The
learned Single Judge, as mentioned earlier, accepted the said
contention and dismissed the Writ Petition. We find that the above
stand taken by the respondents or its affirmation by the learned Single
Judge cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified. So long as the
Special Rules are there, the petitioner can aspire for promotion as
Research Officer, if only he has research experience. Since he does
W.A.No.2315/2004 4
not have research experience, his claim was rightly repelled. He
cannot be treated on par with persons working in the applied research
field as Research Assistants. We are told that the appellant was later
promoted as Superintendent and still later as Assistant Director of
Fisheries. For the reasons mentioned above, we see no ground to
interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal is dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Judge
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS