IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23625 of 2009(W)
1. M.P.SAJAN, SALES TAX OFFICER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES,
3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 23625 OF 2009 (W)
=====================
Dated this the 15th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The issue raised in the writ petition is regarding the
correctness of the claim of the petitioner for inclusion in the select
list for the post of Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2002 at the
appropriate place, according to his seniority.
2. Petitioner was working as a Sales Tax Inspector and
was eligible for inclusion in the select list for the post of
Commercial Tax Officer for the year 2002. The DPC which met on
25/5/2002, considered his case and proposed to supersede him.
Accordingly, Ext.P1 memo was issued to him, which was replied
by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the select list for the year 2002 and the
petitioner was superseded and according to the petitioner, he
ought to have been included between Sl.Nos.18 and 19.
3. He represented against Ext.P3 in terms of Rule 28(b)(i)
(8) of the KS&SSR. Accordingly, his case was considered by the
DPC (Lower) held on 9/8/02 and Ext.P5 is the select list, wherein
the petitioner was also selected for promotion to the cadre of
Sales Tax Officers for the year 2002. Based on his inclusion in
WPC No. 23625/09
:2 :
Ext.P5 select list, he was promoted by Ext.P6 order. However,
when seniority list was published by Exts.P7 and P7(a), petitioner
was assigned Sl.No.689 and his junior was assigned Sl.No.641.
4. Petitioner objected to the seniority assigned by filing
Ext.P8 and also submitted Ext.P9 representation to the Convenor
of DPC. However, Ext.P10(a) final seniority list was published
without accepting his objections. He represented the matter by
submitting Ext.P11. That was considered and his claim was
rejected by Ext.P13. Further representations were also made, and
by Ext.P15, he was asked to make a representation to the DPC.
Accordingly, he made a representation to the DPC and was
informed by Ext.P17 that the decision of the DPC (Lower) held on
9/8/02 was to include him in the select list for the year 2002 only
with prospective effect, and therefore, his claim for appropriate
placement in Ext.P3 select list cannot be accepted. It is the
correctness of this stand that calls for determination in this writ
petition.
5. Petitioner’s case is that in the DPC held on 25/5/2002,
his claim was superseded on the ground that his confidential
reports were relatively poor and the DPC wanted further materials
WPC No. 23625/09
:3 :
to be obtained from his superiors. It is stated that, accordingly,
materials were obtained, and on that basis, suitability was
reassessed, and he was included in Ext.P5 select list. It is stated
that once his suitability for promotion was accepted, he is entitled
to be included in Ext.P3 select list according to his seniority in the
feeder category. It is this contention that is rejected by the
impugned order.
6. However, learned Government Pleader on the other
hand contends that Ext.P5 is only a supplementary select list, and
therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim inclusion or ranking
in Ext.P3 select list.
7. Admittedly, when the DPC met on 25/5/2002 and
prepared Ext.P3 select list, petitioner was a candidate eligible for
consideration. His case was considered and was superseded and
further materials were collected by the DPC. It was accordingly
that his case was again considered on 9/8/2002. Ext.P5 is the
select list that was published pursuant to the DPC held on 9/8/02.
Both Exts.P3 and P5 show that select lists were for the year 2002.
Neither Ext.P5 nor the counter affidavit in this writ petition
indicate that Ext.P5 was a supplementary select list as contended
WPC No. 23625/09
:4 :
before me. If on assessment of the petitioner’s suitability, the
DPC held on 9/8/02 has held him eligible for promotion, his
eligibility is therefore recognised with reference to Ext.P3 select
list. In this case, there is no indication in Ext.P5 to the effect that
the select list was a supplementary one and in such a situation, a
satiation, in terms of Rule 28(b)(7) KS&SSR, petitioner is entitled
to have his place in Ext.P3 select list depending upon his seniority
in the feeder category.
8. In the nature of the facts as stated above, I am
satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. He is entitled
to have his name included at the appropriate place in Ext.P3
select list, which according to the petitioner ought to have been
between Sl.Nos.18 and 19 of Ext.P3.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition holding that the
petitioner’s name ought to have been included at the appropriate
place in Ext.P3 select list for the year 2002 depending upon his
seniority and the 2nd respondent is directed to revise Ext.P3 select
list incorporating the name of the petitioner at the appropriate
place and revise his seniority on that basis. Needless to say that
the petitioner’s further entitlements will also be worked out on
WPC No. 23625/09
:5 :
that basis. Consequential orders will be passed as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of
this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
