IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 55 of 2010()
1. T.NIRMALA, W/O.P.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
2. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
3. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT,
4. MRS.LINDA K.K.,
5. MRS.JULA BHAI,
6. MRS.SHEELA P.P.,
7. MRS.RADHA.T.,
8. MRS.SUJATHA T.K.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :07/06/2010
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
W. A. Nos. 55 & 61 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
These are Writ Appeals filed against the judgments of the learned
single Judge confirming the order of the Guruvayur Devaswom
Commissioner declining Appellant’s claim for promotion as Head
Nurse in the year 1987. The appellant joined as a staff nurse from the
year 1982 in the Hospital under the management of Guruvayur
Devaswom. Appellant’s case is that staff fixation and pay scales are the
same as that of Government nurse and going by the ratio followed for
promotion of staff nurse to Head Nurse which was in the ratio 2:1,
appellant should have been promoted as Head Nurse in the year 1987.
However, the appellant continued as staff nurse and she left service in
1991 to work abroad for a period of six years. Appellant was granted
leave without wages for foreign employment. She returned in the year
1997 and within a period of six months of joining service, she was
promoted as Head Nurse. However, later the Government changed the
W.A.NOS. 55 & 61/2010 2
ratio of staff nurse to Head Nurse from 2:1 to 2:2:1. In other words,
only when there are two junior Grade II and two Junior Grade I staff
nurses, there is scope for appointment of a Head Nurse. On account of
change in ratio the number of vacancy of Head Nurse came down and
being junior, appellant was reverted to Grade I nurse against which
appellant has no complaint. However, appellant has a grievance
because if she was promoted in 1987 as Head Nurse, she would have
been senior to the person who is presently retained as Head Nurse and
the other person would have been reverted. The learned single Judge
held against the appellant and hence these appeals.
2. During hearing, we specifically asked the question whether
the appellant is challenging the promotion given to other nurse when
the vacancy arose, that was when the appellant was abroad. This is
permissible under Rule 4 of Appendix XIIA under which a person
going abroad will forgo promotion post arising during the period of
absence of such person. Therefore under the rules appellant cannot on
return from abroad question the promotion given to the other person.
The claim of the appellant that she was entitled to be promoted in 1987
W.A.NOS. 55 & 61/2010 3
cannot be considered now because after refixation of ratio appellant
cannot now be appointed as Head Nurse with retrospective effect from
1987. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the Writ Appeals.
Consequently we dismiss the Writ Appeals.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(P.S. GOPINATHAN)
Judge.
kk
W.A.NOS. 55 & 61/2010 4