High Court Kerala High Court

The Principal Accountant General vs M.P. Govindankutty on 28 July, 2009

Kerala High Court
The Principal Accountant General vs M.P. Govindankutty on 28 July, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 14730 of 2006(S)


1. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. M.P. GOVINDANKUTTY,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

                For Respondent  :SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :28/07/2009

 O R D E R
     K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
                ---------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) No.14730 OF 2006
                ---------------------------------------
             Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~~~~~

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The writ petitioner is the respondent in O.A.No.579/2003.

The respondent herein was the applicant. Ext.P1 is the copy of

the Original Application. The Original Application was filed

challenging Annexure-A2 dated 25.2.2003 issued on behalf of

the writ petitioner to the respondent stating that he is not

eligible for promotion as Senior Audit Officer as on 1.1.2003, as

he has not completed two years’ service on that date.

2. The brief facts of the case are the following:

Three Audit Officers were promoted as Senior Audit

Officers by Annexure-R3 order dated 1.1.2001 produced along

with Ext.P2 reply statement filed in answer to the averments in

Ext.P1 Original Application. M/s. A.Ismail, K.G.Thomas and

K.P.Gopakumaran were the promotees under Annexure-R3.

They were promoted with effect from 1.1.2001. But, the report

W.P.(C) No.14730/2006 2

regarding the joining duty of Sri.A.Ismail in the promoted post

reached the office of the writ petitioner only on 2.1.2001. In the

resultant vacancy, the respondent was promoted as Audit Officer

on 2.1.2001 and on the same day he joined duty. He is entitled

to be promoted as Senior Audit Officer on completion of two

years’ service in the post of Audit Officer. The dispute between

the parties was relating to the date on which he completed two

years’ service. According to the writ petitioner, he completed

two years’ service only on 2.1.2003, whereas the

respondent/applicant canvassed for the position that he

completed two years service on 1.1.2003 and therefore he should

be promoted on that date.

3. Normally, promotions are ordered having regard to

the date of occurrence of vacancies and acquisition of

qualification by the incumbent concerned. It is not in dispute

that there was a vacancy available on 1.1.2003 in the cadre of

Senior Audit Officer to accommodate the applicant. But, as per

the executive orders governing the field, if a candidate is not

qualified and therefore not promoted on 1.1.2003, he will be

W.P.(C) No.14730/2006 3

promoted only on 1.1.2004 even if he becomes qualified on

2.1.2003. We do not find any such provision in the Recruitment

Rules, a copy of which was produced as Annexure-A6 along with

Ext.P3 rejoinder filed by the applicant. No one has challenged

the validity of that stipulation. Prima facie, the said stipulation

appears to be strange. Anyway, we do not propose to comment

on that point, as there are no pleadings or prayers concerning

the same. It is common ground that Sri.Ismail was ordered to be

promoted on 1.1.2001, but owing to delay from the part of the

Sri. Ismail or from the part of the officials concerned to report

his assumption of charge, the applicant could be promoted as

Audit Officer only on 2.1.2001. Can the said delay have the

effect of delaying the promotion of the applicant by one year was

the point that was raised for decision before the C.A.T. The

C.A.T. found in favour of the applicant. Hence, this Writ Petition

by the respondent in the Original Application.

4. If a person commences the service on 2.1.2001, he

will complete two years service on 1.1.2003. Further, the delay

from the part of Sri.Ismail or somebody else in reporting about

W.P.(C) No.14730/2006 4

his assumption of charge cannot affect the rights or claims of the

applicant.

In view of the above position, we find no reason to interfere

with the view taken by the C.A.T. A plausible view on the facts of

the case has been taken. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and

it is dismissed.

(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)

(C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
ps