Petitioners, graduate typists, challenged their promotion to Section Officer being deferred in favor of juniors. The court examined two Government Orders. It held the exemption from suitability test was conditional, and the Orders were not contradictory. Petitions dismissed.
Petitions dismissed; no merit found in the claims regarding seniority and promotion.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932
OP.No. 5217 of 2002(U)
----------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
STANLY GEORGE A., ASSISTANT, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW SRI.G.S.MOHANDAS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. SHRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI.S., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
4. SHRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.
5. SMT.NAJEMA BEEVI H.A., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
6. SMT. USHAKUMARI K., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
7. SHRI.VIVEKANANDAN K., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
OP NO.5217/2002
-2-
8. SMT.GABRIALAL K., SECTION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011. 9. SMT.AYISHA BEEVI S., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 10. SHRI. SASIKUMAR T.S., SECTION OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
11. SHRI.CHANDRAN E., SECTION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.
12. SHRI. RAJESAN J.S., SECTION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 004.
13. SHRI. VIJAYA DAS S., SECTION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 006.
14. SHRI. RAMAKRISHNA K.M., SECTION OFFICER, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR - 680 004.
ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC FOR R1 SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R5,9-10 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R5,9-10
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.12014/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP NO.5217/2002
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.219/88/GAD DT 17.6.88. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.138/89/GAD DTD. 5.6.89. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTT.II(2) 393/96/GW DTD.28.12.99 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTT.II(2) 393/96/GW DTD.10.1.2001 OF 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO R1 DATED 22.11.2001. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC DATED 3.12.2001.
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE GRADATION LIST OF ASSISTANTS DTD. 15.1.90 (RELEVANT PORTION).
EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTT.II(1)1/2001/GW DTD.30.11.2001 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.ESTT.II(1) 1/2001/GW DATED 31.12.2001 OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ O.P.No.5217 OF 2002 (U)
&
W.P.(C) NO. 12014 OF 2004 (E)
=====================
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners in these petitions are graduate typists. Their grievance is that in the matter of promotion to the post of Section Officer, juniors to them in service have got promotion earlier to them. It is in this background, these petitions have been filed.
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
suitability test for appointment to the post of Section Officer and that the Government Order itself provides that a Typist/Confidential Assistant will not be appointed as Section Officer in preference to an Assistant, who has the next chance of appointment as Section Officer and whose total length of service is equal to or greater than that of the Typist/Confidential Assistant. On this basis, counsel contends that since respondents in these petitions entered service subsequent to them, their total length of service is less than that of theirs and therefore, they could not have been preferred to them or given earlier appointment as Section Officers.
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
:3 :
Ext.P1, the party respondents herein could not have been given promotion earlier than the petitioners.
In this connection, it is to be pointed out that the Ext.P2 was issued by the Government in consultation with the Commission. Necessary proposals were formulated and placed by the Government and the Commission after considering various aspects involved in the matter
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
:4 :
agreed to the proposals of the Government. The reason which weighed with the Government in proposing clause (c) of Ext.P2 Government order and found reasonable by the Commission is that one can enter in service as Typists/Confidential Assistants in the Government Secretariat (or in the office of the K.P.S.C) also) 3 to 5 years earlier in age than an Assistant who can join in service only after graduation. A Typist/Confidential Assistant can acquire graduation after entering the service and thereby acquire eligibility to get selection as Section as per the existing ratio at younger age than the Assistant and thus gain better prospects for further advancement than the directly recruited Assistants. In order to mitigate the hardship caused to the Assistants, Government incorporated a further condition to the rules to the effect that no graduate Typists/Confidential Assistant who is younger in age to a directly recruited Assistant would become eligible for appointment as Section Officer and issued the orders in GO(Ms) No.219/88/GAD dt 17.6.88 (Ext.P2). The clause (c) has been incorporated as a precaution so that injustice as aforesaid may not be brought about in the case of Assistants while exemption is granted to graduate Typists/Confidential Assistants from passing the required suitability test. If no such condition was made, the exemption granted to graduate typists/confidential Assistants would have been prejudicial to the interests of the Assistants. The intention was that no Section or staff who constitute the feeder category should be put to hardship or disadvantage by introduction of new rules to the benefit of a Section of the feeder category ie. Confidential Assistants/Typists.
Government Order containing that Clause providing seniority to elder in age is redundant in view of Ext.P2, the subsequent
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
:5 :
Government Order. The other contention raised is that the clauses contained in Exts.P1 and P2 are contradictory in nature, and therefor, the latter one, viz., Ext.P2, should prevail.
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
:6 :
Typists/Confidential Typists will not be appointed as Section Officer, in preference to an Assistant, who has next chance of appointment as Section Officer, and whose total length of service is equal to or greater than the Typists/Confidential Assistants. This provision will apply to a Typist/Confidential Assistant, who has not claimed or enjoyed the benefit of exemption. In other words, this provision applies to a Graduate Typist or Confidential Assistant, who is qualified in all respects including in Suitability test. On the other hand, Note 3 providing for exemption applies to Graduate Typists, who have not passed Suitability Test and the Note provides that such Graduate Typists will enjoy the benefit of exemption, but however, subject to the conditions of GO(P) No.219/88/GAD dated 17/6/88. Therefore, these two Government Orders deal with two classes of Graduate Typists/Confidential Assistants and Ext.P1 GO(P) No.219/88/GAD dated 17/6/88 applies only in respect of the latter one. Viewed in this manner, I am not persuaded to agree with the counsel for the petitioners that there is anything contradictory in between Exts.P1 and P2 nor hold that Ext.P2 should govern the field. Therefore, that
OP No.5217/2002 & WP(C) No.12014/04
contention also has to be rejected
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether exemption from suitability test for graduate typists operates subject to conditions regarding age and seniority for Assistant Grade employees.
Whether later Government Order regarding suitability test exemption renders earlier Government Order regarding age-based seniority redundant or contradictory.
STANLY GEORGE A.
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
