IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20099 of 2006(P)
1. P.SELVARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR,
3. THE STATE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :17/07/2008
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 20099 OF 2006
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner, who has passed SSLC and completed certificate
course in Civil Engineering was appointed as a Fibre Instructor in the
Khadi & Village Industries Commission. He became Foreman,
Assistant Development Officer and then Development Officer and
retired from that post on 29.6.2001. However petitioner’s case is that
being a second seniormost Development Officer, he was entitled to be
appointed as Assistant Director, which post was wrongly denied to
him. It is conceded that another person who was senior to the
petitioner, and No.1 in the list of Development Officers was not
appointed in the post of Asst. Director. Obviously the claim of the
petitioner arose after the retirement of the person senior to him.
However, standing counsel for the Khadi Commission submitted that
new rules framed came into force on 26.6.1998, where under
educational qualification for the post of Asst. Director is Master’s
degree in Physics, Chemistry, etc., or Degree in Engineering.
Petitioner was not promoted because he did not have the required
educational qualification for the post of Asst. Director. Petitioner’s
2
case is that rules have only prospective effect and even prior to coming
into force of the rules, vacancies were available, which should have
been filled up by the petitioner. I do not think petitioner is entitled
because none in the list below him is appointed as Asst. Director
overlooking him. There is nothing to indicate that respondents are
bound to fill up every vacancy of Asst. Director as and when the same
arises. In fact, the person who was senior to the petitioner in the cadre
of Development Officer did not even choose to make claim for
promotion as Asst. Director probably for want of educational
qualification. In the circumstances there is no justification for this
Court to go into the question as to whether there were vacancies
available prior to coming into force of the rules 10 years back and
whether respondents were bound to fill those vacancies first by person
senior to petitioner and then by petitioner. W.P. therefore fails and is
dismissed.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk
3