IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32201 of 2008(H)
1. PEARLVY.A.GEORGE, L.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
3. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/11/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
=W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = =
No. 32201 OF 2008 H
= = =
Dated this the 11th day of November 2008
J U D G M E N T
Ext. P1 is a circular issued by the 1st respondent exempting
those who were appointed as Clerks prior to 19.11.1994 from
acquiring test qualification for the purpose of availing of benefits
such as higher grades. Petitioner submits that on the basis that she
had completed 10 years service and in view of Ext.P1, being eligible
for the first higher grade, submitted Ext. P2 statement of fixation of
pay. That was returned by Ext. P3. In the meanwhile by Ext. P5
circular dated 26.12.2007 the Government cancelled Ext. P1. It is at
that stage, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the
3rd respondent to disburse the arrears of salary as fixed in Ext. P2
on the basis of Ext. P1.
2. Admittedly, though in Ext. P2, the benefit of Ext. P1
exempting those appointed as Clerks prior to 19.11.1994 from
acquiring test qualification, is claimed by the petitioner, Ext.P1 has
W.P.(C) No.32201 OF 2008
– 2 –
been cancelled by the Government as per Ext.P5. If that be so,
once the benefit of exemption has been cancelled no employee can
claim any right on the basis of the cancelled order. Therefore, at
this stage, it will not be proper for this Court to direct that
irrespective of the cancellation of Ext. P1, the petitioner should be
extended the benefit thereof.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to
the issuance of Ext. P5, certain employees have been given the
benefit of Ext. P1. Even if the said submission is true, this Court will
not be justified in directing that for the sake of parity the
Government should continue to extend the benefit of an order
which stands cancelled, I am not persuaded to grant the direction
sought for.
4. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-