Dismissed

J.Sarala Devi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2009WP(C)/21496/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged placements of Section Officers in the Legislature Secretariat. The petitioners argued that remaining vacancies from the old promotion ratio should be filled before implementing a new ratio. The High Court found no arbitrariness in the Government's decision to clear the old ratio backlog first.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders were upheld without interference.

J.Sarala Devi Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 21496 of 2003(H) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

---------------------

¶8

1. J.SARALA DEVI, SECTION OFFICER, (HIGHER GRADE) LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

2. K.SUBAIDA BEEVI, SECTION OFFICER, DO. DO.

¶10

3. M.T.ELEYKUTTY, SECTION OFFICER, DO. DO.

¶11

BY ADVS. MR.ELVIN PETER P.J, MR.S.RAMESH, MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, MR.S.D.ASOKAN, MR.NAVEEN.T.

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

------------------------

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM

¶15

2. N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SECTION OFFICER (HIGHER GRADE), LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

3. J.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SECTION OFFICER (HIGHER GRADE), LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

4. S.SAFFIA BEEVI, DO. DO.

¶18

5. K.A.ACHAMMA, DO. DO.

¶19

6. K.VENUGOPAL, DO. DO.

¶20

7. V.VENUGOPAL, DO. DO.

¶21

8. P.MOHANADAS, DO. DO.

¶22

W.P.(C). NO.21496/2003-H:

¶23

9. C.P.MANOHARAN, DO. DO.

¶24

10. N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, DO. DO.

¶25

11. P.K.VIJAYA KUMAR, DO. DO.

¶26

12. K.VIJAYAMMA, DO. DO.

¶27

13. K.PADMARAJU, SECTION OFFICER, DO. DO.

¶28

R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R2,R3 R5,R9,R10,R12 & R13 BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, R4,R6,R7,R8 & R11 BY ADVS. MR.N.SUGATHAN,

¶29

SMT.R.SEEMA.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

W.P.(C). NO.21496/2003-H:

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.228/98/LEG. DT. 13/03/1998. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.796/2000/LEG. DTD. 18/07/2000. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.1136/2000/LEG. DTD. 08/11/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER.G.O.(P).NO.342/77/GAD DTD. 7TH OCTOBER 1977. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.MS.NO.138/88/LEG. DTD. 30TH JAN. 1988. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(P).NO.138/89/GAD DTD. 5TH JUNE, 1989. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.1018/92/LEG. DTD. 05/09/1992.

¶35

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DTD. 3RD JUNE, 1998.

¶36

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DTD. 13TH JULY 1998.

¶37

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SELECT LIST ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DTD. 17TH JULY,2000.

¶38

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(P).NO.219/88/GAD. DTD. 17/06/1998.

¶39

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.630/94/LEG. DTD. 16/07/1994. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.368/2000/LEG. DTD. 01/04/2000.

¶40

EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.296/2001/LEG. DTD. 23/03/2001.

¶41

EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/03/2001 FILED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1.

¶42

EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(MS).NO.448/2001/LEG. DTD. 24/05/2003.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶44

EXT.R2.1: COPY OF THE KERALA LEGISLATURE SECRETARIAT (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 1979 ISSUED VIDE NOTIFICATION NO. 1607/LA12/79 DTD. 03/07/1979.

¶45

EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/12/2000 OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. P & ARD TO THE SECRETARY, LEGISLATIVE SECRETARIAT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

WP(C) No.21496 of 2003

¶51

Dated, this the 6^th day of November, 2009

¶52

The petitioners, who were working as Section Officers in the Legislature Secretariat, have filed this writ petition praying to quash Exts.P14 and P16, and to direct the respondents to retain the seniority assigned to them in Ext.P13, and to review the promotions already made to the category of Section Officers implementing ratio of 1:1:15 prescribed in Ext.P7, with effect from 30/01/1988.

¶53

Although pleadings and voluminous and several prayers are sought for, the issue raised is confined to the interpretation of the sentence “when appointments made to the post of Section Officer since 01/07/1992 are regulated based on the revised procedure, the ratio will be applied as continuation of the old ratio” occurring in Ext.P7 order dated 05/09/1992.

¶54

Briefly stated the facts of the case show that the petitioners belonged to the Legislature Secretariat. Ext.P4 is the Special Rule, which was prevailing in the Administrative Secretariat, providing for ratio of 2:1:1:30 from the categories mentioned

¶55

WP(C) No.21496/2003

¶56

-2-

¶57

therein in the matter of promotion of Section Officers. Ext.P4 special Rule was adopted in the Legislature Secretariat as per Ext.P5 order dated 30/01/1988. This order shows that the ratio, as prescribed in Ext.P4, was also adopted in the Legislature Secretariat without any modification.

¶58

While Ext.P5 governed the employees of the Legislature Secretariat, by Ext.P6 order dated 05/06/1989, Ext.P4 Special Rules were amended in the Administrative Secretariat, consequent on the judgment of this Court in O.P.No.1915/1984, and the Rules were revised. In so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case, all that is to be stated is that as against the ratio of 2:1:1:30, a new ratio of 1:1:15 was implemented in the Administrative Secretariat with effect from 31/07/1976. It was also stated in Ext.P6 that “the ratio will be applied in a block of 17 vacancies of Section Officers. When the appointments made to the post of Section Officer since 31/07/1976 are regulated based on the revised procedure, the ratio will be applied as a continuation of the old ratio.”

¶59

Long thereafter, by Ext.P7 dated 05/09/1992, the Legislature Secretariat adopted Ext.P6, with effect from 01/07/1992. In Ext.P7, also it has been stated that when appointments made to the post of Section Officer since 01/07/1992

¶60

-3-

¶61

WP(C) No.21496/2003

¶62

are regulated based on the revised procedure, the ratio will be applied as a continuation of the old ratio. Subsequently by Ext.P13 order dated 01/04/2000, applying the ratio of 1:1:15, placements were given in the category of Section Officer.

¶63

Going by the counter affidavit filed by the party respondents, as against the block of 34, as provided in Ext.P5 special Rules, only 23 promotions were effected based on the old ratio, and 11 vacancies were remaining unfilled. According to them, since Ext.P7 contemplated introduction of the new ratio as a continuation of the old ratio, the unfilled 11 vacancies were to be first filled up applying the old ratio. Raising this contention, objections were raised against Ext.P13, by which placement was given as per the new ratio given in Ext.P7. The objectors were heard, and the Legislature Secretariat obtained clarification from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, a copy of which is Ext.R4(a) dated 13/12/2000. In Ext.R4(a) it was clarified that “as it is stated in G.O.(MS) 1018/92/Leg. dated 05/09/92 that the ratio of 1:1:15 will be applied as a continuation of the old ratio (2:1:1:30), the block of 34 is to be completed before starting the new ratio 1:1:15 in a block of 17”. Thus, the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department opined that the ratio in the

¶64

WP(C) No.21496/2003

¶65

-4-

¶66

block of 34 should first be completed, as a result of which, the placement given by Ext.P13, implementing the new ratio of 1:1:15, had to be revised.

¶67

Based on the above, Ext.P14 dated 23/03/2001 was issued placing employees in the cadre of Section Officers. This order shows that Block -I is a list of 34 Section Officers indicating thereby that 11 more promotions have been effected following the earlier ratio of 34. Thereafter, from Block II onwards, promotions have been effected applying the revised ratio as introduced by Ext.P7. Thereupon Ext.P15 representation was made by the 1^st petitioner objecting to Ext.P14, which was considered and was rejected by Ext.P16 dated 24/05/2003. It was thereupon that this writ petition is filed.

¶68

From the facts as narrated above, therefore, it is evident that the new ratio introduced by Ext.P7 contemplated the new ratio as a continuation of the old ratio. When the new ratio was implemented, 11 posts in the Block of 34, based on the old ratio, were remaining unfilled. It was therefore that the objections were filed against Ext.P14. On its receipt, parties were heard, and the Legislature Secretariat sought clarification from the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, which opined that the backlog

¶69

WP(C) No.21496/2003

¶70

-5-

¶71

in the old ratio should be filled up first, since the new ratio is ordered to be implemented as a continuation of the old ratio. It is in that process that the review has been undertaken and implemented by Ext.P14.

¶72

In my considered opinion, the view taken by the Government is a possible view and after due application of mind. If so, this Court will not be justified in upsetting the same. Further, it should be stated that Ext.P7 order implementing the new ratio with the rider that the new ratio will be in continuation of the old ratio, is not under challenge. Therefore, the only question to be examined by this Court is whether in the process of implementation of Ext.P14, any arbitrariness or perversity has been committed by the respondents. The facts of this case do not disclose any such arbitrariness or perversity on the part of the respondents warranting interference in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶73

The writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.

¶74

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶75

J.Sarala Devi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Sarala Devi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.Board,Rep.by Its Chairman & Others Vs C.K.Narayanan and Another

Velayudhan P.& Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mathiri Davidson Vs Chairman & Managing Director,Kbps

K.Vijayakumar Vs Indian Overseas Bank

K.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh.a.S. Vs K.P.S.C. and Others