IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 518 of 2009()
1. P.J.GARVASEES, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
4. LATHA DEVI M.A., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
————————————
R.P. No. 518 of 2009
————————————
Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009
Order
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the review petitioner. He filed the
writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Assistant
Director (Documents) in supersession of the 5th respondent.
The sole foundation of the claim of the review petitioner was
that he joined the feeder category for training ahead of all
others in his batch. The review petitioner and four others
including the 5th respondent were advised by the PSC to the
feeder category of Scientific Assistant on 24.9.1998. All of
them were appointed on 28.11.1998. They joined for training
on different dates. The appellant joined first on 3.12.1998.
The regular training commenced for all the trainees on
22.3.1999. They completed the training on 21.9.1999. All of
them were appointed as probationers on 22.9.1999. They
completed probation on 22.9.2001. Among the five
appointees, the review petitioner was the junior-most in the
advice list and appointment orders. Rule 7 of the Special Rules
R.P.No.518 of 2009:
– 2 –
for the posts of Scientific Assistants of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, says that commencement of probation is only on
completion of training. The said rule reads as follows:
“7. Probation. Every person appointed to
the post by methods (i) or (ii) of Rule 2 shall on
completion of training be on probation for a total
period of 2 years on duty within a continuous
period of 3 years”.
So, all the appointees commenced regular service pursuant to the
appointment on 22.9.1999. The review petitioner says that he
gained five years experience before others for the reason that he
joined the training before them. The other respondents would
point out that though the review petitioner reported earlier, the
training commenced only on 22.3.1999 and all of them
completed training on 21.9.1999. The review petitioner claims
that since he reported for training earlier, it should be taken that
his service commenced from that date and therefore, he gained
experience from the said date. Therefore, he gained five years
experience ahead of others. So, he should have been preferred
for promotion as the person who acquired the qualification first.
R.P.No.518 of 2009:
– 3 –
2. We are of the view that the above ground taken by
the review petitioner is manifestly wrong. For the reason that he
was able to report at the training place a few days earlier,he
cannot claim seniority or he cannot claim that he had acquired
experience in the post earlier. Going by the scheme of Rule 27(c)
and the first proviso to Rule 28(a)(i) which frown upon the claim
of the junior for seniority/promotion on the ground that he joined
the feeder post earlier, the above claim has only to be rejected.
Even though the ground raised may not a ground for review, we
have considered the matter on merits. We are of the view that
there is no merit in the ground taken for review. Accordingly, the
Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
JUDGE.
Sd/-
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS,
JUDGE.
DK.
(True copy)