This writ petition challenged the promotion of respondents 4 to 7 to the post of Butler despite lacking required qualifications under Special Rules. The court held the promotion illegal but directed the petitioner be considered for similar vacancies.
Exts.P8 and P10 orders quashed; petitioner directed to be considered for promotion to any vacancy created;
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
TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 2197 of 2009(J)
PETITIONER(S):
JAYAKUMAR.S., NOW WORKING AS HOSPITALITY ASSISTANT GOVT. GUEST HOUSE, KOVALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT OOTTUKUZHI KALLUVILA VEEDU, MANGALATHUKONAM, KATTACHALKUZHI PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 SRI. ANTONY MUKATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 2197 of 2009
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE SPECIAL RULES FOR THE KERALA TOURISM SUB ORDINATES SERVICES, 1995
EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) DATED 9.5.1995
EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DATED 18.7.04
EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST
EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.07
EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3-3984/2008 DATED 8.8.08
EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER NO.E4- 16885/06 DATED 4.11.08 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.12.08 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E4- 19294/08 DATED 26.12.08 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT
(TRUE COPY)
P.A TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
W.P.(C).2197/2009
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8 order promoting respondents 4 to 7 to the post of Butler in the Tourism Department. Petitioner joined service on 13.12.1999 as Bungalow Matey. Ext.P4 order shows that the post of Waiter/Room Attendant and Bungalow Matey were re-designated as Hospitality Assistant.
W.P.(C).2197/09
2
qualification prescribed in Ext.P1 Special Rules and as he is in the feeder category of Hospitality Assistant, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Butler.
was based on the seniority of employees in the category of Hospitality Assistant, promotion was ordered by Ext.P8 and that the petitioner will also be considered for promotion as and when his turn comes. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed contending that the promotion of respondents 4 to 7 is illegal and also praying to quash Exts.P8 and P10 orders. There is a further prayer to direct the respondents to make appointment to the post of Butler in terms of the Special Rules and to appoint the petitioner to one of the vacancies.
W.P.(C).2197/09
3
“The feeder category of Butler post is the posts included in the category of Hospitality Assistant. But seniors of the petitioner in the feeder category has not acquired Craft Certificate from Food Craft Institute. However considering their seniority in the feeder category and considering provisions contained in the Special Rules, Department of Tourism had promoted six Hospitality Assistants as Butlers. Action is being taken by the Department of Tourism for sending them for training at Food Craft Institute for acquiring qualification. It is true that the petitioner was fully qualified for promotion to the post of Butler while promoting his unqualified seniors. But Department had to consider seniority also in the feeder category.”
W.P.(C).2197/09
4
Writ petition is therefore, disposed of quashing Exts.P8 and P10 and directing that the petitioner be considered for promotion to any one of the vacancies to which respondents 4 to 7 were promoted by Ext.P8. Orders in this behalf shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
mrcs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether promotion orders passed in violation of prescribed qualification requirements are legally sustainable.
Whether directing the petitioner to be considered for vacancies filled by unqualified promotions is appropriate.
Whether subsequent training can validate an initially illegal promotion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
JAYAKUMAR.S.
STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TOURISM DEPARTMENT
T.P. SAJEEVKUMAR
B.GOPINATHAN NAIR
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
