IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16189 of 2004(S)
1. K.KADER, AGED 56 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADMINISTRATOR,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
3. UNION OF INDIA,
4. B.NANDI NAMPOOTHIRI,
5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.PR.RAMACHANDRA MENON,SC,LAKSHADWEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :21/02/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ.
...................................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004
...................................................................................
Dated this the 21st February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J:
The petitioner, who was working as Headmaster on adhoc basis in a
Government High School in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep filed O.A. 511 of 2001
challenging Annexure A5 order dated 14.06.2001 produced along with Ext. P1 original
application. By that order, the 4th respondent herein, viz., B. Nandi Nampoothiri was
promoted as Headmaster. According to the petitioner, as a result of the said order, he
faced reversion. So he filed O.A.No. 511 of 2001, challenging Annexure -A5 order.
2. The petitioner submitted that a Committee of Officers considered his claim
for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster from the feeder category of Trained
Graduate Teachers and he was promoted as Assistant Headmaster by Annexure -A1
order dated 21.03.1990. Later, by Annexure-A2 order dated 31.07.1997, he was
further promoted as Headmaster on adhoc basis for a period of six months. The said
period was later extended without any time limit, it is submitted. While so, the 4th
respondent, Nandi Nampoothiri was promoted on regular basis as Assistant
Headmaster as per Annexure-A3 order dated 02.11.2000. The said order would show
that he was promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion
Committee . As per the recruitment rules in force, up to 1996, a Trained Graduate
Teacher could be promoted without acquisition of Post Graduate qualification as
Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster. But the recruitment rules were amended by
Notification dated 25.01.1996 providing that Post Graduate qualification is an essential
W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004
2
qualification for promotion as Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster. But the
vacancies which arose prior to 1996 were filled up in accordance with the recruitment
rules then in force.
3. The petitioner submitted that while he was working as Headmaster, Mr.
Nandi Nampoothiri was working as Assistant Headmaster. Since, the latter was
promoted to the post of Headmaster by Annexure A5 order in preference to him, the
same is illegal. Though his promotion, ordered as per Annexure A1 order to the post of
Assistant Headmaster, is shown as adhoc promotion, it should be treated as a regular
promotion because his claim for promotion was considered by a Committee of Officers,
it is submitted. It is also submitted that since the 4th respondent, Mr. Nandi Nampoothiri
was promoted as Assistant Headmaster in the vacancy of one P.K. Narayanan, who
was promoted on adhoc basis to the post of Headmaster, the promotion granted to the
4th respondent, Mr. Nandi Nampoothiri as per Annexure A3 order should also be treated
as adhoc or provisional . Therefore, there was no justification in promoting the 4th
respondent as Headmaster and in reverting the petitioner in that process on the basis
of Annexure A5 order, it is contended. So the above O.A. was filed before the C.A.T.
seeking appropriate reliefs.
4. The Lakshadweep Administration filed a reply statement contending that by
Annexure A3 order, the 4th respondent was granted promotion on regular basis on the
basis of the decision of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee . The
petitioner was junior to the 4th respondent. It was stated that the petitioner’s claim was
also considered for promotion. For the year 1994, there were 9 vacancies and in those
vacancies, senior persons including the 4th respondent were promoted. Since the
petitioner was lower down in the seniority, he could not be promoted . The official
W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004
3
respondents had also produced the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee
which met on 23.09.2000, based on which the 4th respondent was promoted on regular
basis as Assistant Headmaster. In view of regular promotion granted to the 4th
respondent as Assistant Headmaster, he was preferred in the matter of further
promotion on adhoc basis as Headmaster as per Annexure-A5 order. So the official
respondents prayed for dismissal of O.A.511 of 2001. The Tribunal, after hearing both
sides upheld the contentions of the Administration and dismissed O.A.No.511 of 2001.
Hence this Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P6 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal
by which Ext.P1 O.A. was dismissed.
5. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the writ
petitioner reiterated the contentions of the petitioner raised in the Original Application
(O.A.No.511 of 2001), which we have already noticed above. We heard learned
counsel Shri P.R.Ramachandra Menon also, who appeared for Lakshadweep
Administration.
6. The post of Assistant Headmaster is the feeder category for promotion to the
post of Headmaster. The claims of the petitioner and 4th respondent for regular
promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster was considered by the Departmental
Promotion Committee and it was decided to promote the 4th respondent. Based on that
decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Annexure A3 order was issued.
The petitioner has not chosen to challenge that order and thus it has become final. So
for further promotion to the post of Headmaster, the 4th respondent had to be preferred
and that was only done in this case. The contention of the petitioner that his promotion
in 1990 on adhoc basis as Assistant Headmaster should be treated as regular cannot
be accepted, in view of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee
W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004
4
and consequential promotion orders issued as per Annexure-A3. The said contention
cannot be accepted in the absence of any challenge against Annexure-A3 also. The
next contention raised by the petitioner that the 4th respondent has been promoted to
the vacancy which arose out of promotion of one Mr. Narayanan, on adhoc basis and
therefore the 4th respondent could have been promoted only on adhoc basis also
cannot be accepted. As evident from the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion
Committee, the Administration has identified 9 substantive vacancies for promotion in
the year 1994. The 4th respondent was promoted to one of those vacancies. Such
promotees may be posted in exigencies of service to temporary vacancies also.
Therefore, the said contention is plainly untenable. Further, this contention need not
be considered now since the petitioner has failed to challenge Annexure A3 in
appropriate proceedings. As long as Annexure A3 remains in force, the 4th respondent
was rightly preferred for further promotion as Headmaster.
In the result, we find nothing illegal with the decision of the Central
Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk