IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 12228 of 2007(E)
1. N.P.PRAKASAN, S/O.K.K.PUSHKARAN,
... Petitioner
2. T.G.RAMESH, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
... Respondent
2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL OF KERALA,
3. THE SECRETARY TO ADVOCATE GENERAL,
4. SMT.PATHUMMA.K.M., OFFICE
5. SMT.G.VALSALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :12/06/2007
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 12288 of 2007-E
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2007.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are Selection Grade Assistants working under
the second respondent. They are included in Ext.P1 DPC list of
officers eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officers.
Respondents 4 and 5 are Office Superintendent and Selection Grade
Confidential Assistant respectively. The 4th respondent is claiming
promotion under the Typist quota and the 5th respondent under the
quota for Confidential Assistants, to the post of Section Officer. The
vacancies in that post have to be filled up in the ratio of 15:1:1
between Assistants, Typists and Confidential Assistants. According to
the petitioners, respondents 4 and 5, though graduates, they have to
clear the suitability test held by the PSC for getting promotion. In
support of this submission reliance is placed on the Note under Rule 3
of Ext.P2 Special Rules. Initially this was the view maintained by the
competent authority, as evident from Ext.P4. Now, the said stand has
been changed and Ext.P6 has been issued stating that Typists and
Confidential Assistants need not pass the suitability test, provided they
are graduates. So, the petitioners challenge Ext.P6 and also the
WPC No. 12228 of 2007
2
consequential proceedings, Ext.P8, by which respondents 4 and 5 were
deputed for training as Assistants for a period of one year so that they
can be posted as Section Officers. This writ petition is filed by the
petitioners, seeking the following reliefs:
i). call for the records relating to Exhibits P-6
and P-8 quash the originals of the same by
the issue of a writ of certiorari or other
appropriate writ or order.
ii). issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
commanding the Ist, 2nd and 3rd
respondents to promote the petitioners as
Section Officers from Exhibit P-1 as against
the vacancies on 1-4-2007 and 1-5-2007.
iii). issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ order or direction
commanding the Ist, 2nd and 3rd
respondents to refrain from promoting the
4th and 5th respondents as Section Officers
in preference to the petitioners.
2. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that
for graduates, suitability test is not necessary and they are fully
qualified for being considered for appointment.
3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. The contention of
the petitioners that graduates among Typists/Confidential Assistants
should also clear the eligibility test held by the PSC is plainly
untenable, in view of the Note under Rule 3 of Ext.P2. A proper
construction of the said Rule would show that graduates among them
WPC No. 12228 of 2007
3
need not clear the eligibility test. So, the challenge against Ext.P6 is
repelled. The fact that the competent authority has earlier taken a
stand in Ext.P4 that they should also clear the test will not bind
anyone. In the result, the challenge against the consequential
proceedings, Ext.P8 is also repelled.
4. The petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion in
accordance with the rank in Ext.P1, in the light of Ext.P2 Special Rules.
So, the second respondent is directed to consider their claim for
promotion as Section Officers. But, this will not affect the rights of
respondents 4 and 5 or those coming under the Typists/Confidential
Assistants, to claim promotion for the quota set apart for the. If they
are eligible hands, their claim shall also be considered for appointment,
according to their turn as per the ratio 15:1:1, prescribed in Ext.P2.
The direction to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion
shall be complied with and orders passed, within one month from the
date of production of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
MS