Dismissed

K.R.Bose v. the Ksfdc

Kerala HC7 Oct 2010WP(C)/17526/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his failure to secure promotion to Film Editor due to lack of prescribed qualifications. The Court held that relaxation in qualifications is a concession, not a right, and the petitioner had no special circumstances to warrant exercising discretion in his favor.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for relaxation of qualifications and consideration for promotion was rejected; writ petition disposed of.

K.R.Bose Vs the Ksfdc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 17526 of 2006 (J)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

K.R.BOSE, S/O.LATE K.K.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 56 YEARS, 'GANGOTHRI', KARINKADAMUGAL, THIRUVALLAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (ASST. FILM EDITOR, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH SMT.C.G.PREETHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

3. K.P.SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN, ASSISTANT FILM EDITOR, KERALA STATE FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR

¶16

SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSFDC R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC, KPSC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON 07/10/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 17526 of 2006 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DT. 20..8.1982.

¶22

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 27.3.1987.

¶23

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

¶24

EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 16.7.97.

¶25

EXT.P5. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DT. 20.2.2003.

¶26

EXT.P6. COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 30.1.1988.

¶27

EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 17.11.2003 IN OP NO.8283/2003.

¶28

EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT. 19.2.2004..

¶29

EXT.P9. COPY of the JUDGMENT DATED 24.2.2006 IN W.A. NO.85/2004.

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

P.A. TO JUDGE

/ TRUE COPY /

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 17526 of 2006

¶36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2010

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner joined the service of the 1^st respondent Corporation as a Film Joiner, which appointment was regularized on 14.02.1979. The petitioner was later promoted as Assistant Film Editor on 27.03.1987. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Film Editor, the post of Film Editor fell vacant. The post of Assistant Film Editor was the feeder post for promotion to the post of Film Editor. But as per the recruitment rules, separate qualifications were prescribed for the post of Film Editor. Petitioner did not possess the qualification so prescribed. While so, one Mr. Bhaskaran was provisionally promoted as Film Editor by relaxing qualifications. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P.No.4513/1997. Pursuant to the judgment therein the promotion of Mr. Bhaskaran was cancelled. Later on, the 3^rd respondent was provisionally promoted as

¶39

W.P.(C)No. 17526 of 2006

¶40

-2-

¶41

Film Editor by Ext.P5 order. The petitioner challenged the same by filing O.P. No.8283/20003, wherein this court directed consideration of the petitioner's claim for promotion. Although the petitioner challenged the judgment by filing W.A. No.85/2004, since in the meantime the respondents had passed Ext.P8 order, the W.A. was withdrawn with liberty to challenge ExtP8 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 & P8 orders.

¶42

The contention of the petitioner is that, since with effect from 17.01.1979, appointments in the 1^st respondent's service was to be made only through P.S.C., the initial appointment of the 3^rd respondent itself was illegal insofar as by Ext.P6 order the P.S.C had refused concurrence for contract appointments. But by adopting an indirect method the 3^rd respondent was regularized as a Film Joiner and then given the scale of pay of Assistant Film Editor, from which post only the 3^rd respondent has been promoted as Film Editor. Therefore according to the petitioner, the very basic appointment of the 3^rd respondent itself was illegal

¶43

W.P.(C)No. 17526 of 2006

¶44

-3-

¶45

and he could not have been considered for promotion as Film Editor at all. The petitioner would further contend that, insofar as there is provision in the regulations for relaxation of qualification and the 1^st respondent was granted such relaxation to other employees, the petitioner can also be given relaxation in qualifications for promotion to the post of Film Editor.

¶46

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent seeking to controvert the contentions of the petitioner. I need not go into the averments in the counter affidavit elaborately in support of the appointment and promotion of the 3^rd respondent since it is submitted before me that he has already retired from service. Therefore the only question now I need consider in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner can be considered for promotion to the post of Film Editor relaxing the qualifications prescribed in the regulations. Admittedly the petitioner does not possess the qualifications prescribed. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would contend that

¶47

W.P.(C)No. 17526 of 2006

¶48

-4-

¶49

the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Film Editor is pass in S.S.L.C. with seven years experience in editing both of which the petitioner does not possess. The contention of the petitioner is that, although the petitioner was appointed as a Film Joiner, ever since his appointment he was doing the work of editing only and therefore the petitioner should be deemed to have the qualification of seven years experience. But still it is admitted that, the petitioner does not possess the qualification of pass in S.S.L.C. although he had completed the course. When the petitioner himself had challenged the appointment of Mr.Bhaskaran as Film Editor on the ground that relaxation in qualifications given to him is illegal, the petitioner cannot now be heard to contend that the petitioner should be given relaxation in qualification for promotion to the post of Film Editor. Even otherwise relaxation in qualification is not a right. It is a concession to be granted by the 1^st respondent in appropriate cases taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. It is the discretion vested with

¶50

W.P.(C)No. 17526 of 2006

¶51

-5-

¶52

the 1^st respondent which has to be exercised judicious. I cannot direct the 1^st respondent to grant the petitioner relaxation in the qualification for promotion to the post of Film Editor. The petitioner has not also shown any special circumstances which should persuade the respondents to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore I do not find any merit in the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. But I make it clear that, it would be open to the petitioner to seek relaxation in qualification and the 1^st respondent shall consider the same in the facts and circumstances of the case in a judicious manner. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE

¶54

shg/

K.R.Bose v. the Ksfdc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Bose v. the Ksfdc

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

Saji.S.U. Vs Travancore Titanium Products Ltd.

T.K. Vanchi Vs Union of India

Mohamed Rafi Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

P.Rajan Vs Union of India

Mariyakutty Umma Vs Director of Panchayath

Ajakumar.K. Vs Kerala State Audio Visual & Reprographic