Allowed

Mini.P.v. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2011WP(C)/20046/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Deputy Director challenging the respondents' decision to seek direct recruitment instead of promoting her. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to promotion and directed the respondents to initiate the promotion process within two months.

What did the court decide?

Steps taken by respondents to report the vacancy to the Kerala Public Service Commission were intercepted; petitioner directed to be considered for promotion within two months.

Mini.P.v. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 20046 of 2011(E)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

MINI.P.V, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (TRAINING)IN CHARGE,KIRTADS,CHEVAYUR,KOZHIKODE-17.

¶10

BY ADV. MR. DEEPU THANKAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶14

KIRTADS,CHEVAYUR,KOZHIKODE-7, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶15

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS. P.K. SANTHAMMA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) NO. 20046 OF 2011

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT. P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES PUBLISHED BY GAZETTE DATED 11/10/2007
EXT. P2	: TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES PUBLISHED BY GAZETTE DATED 23/10/2007
EXT. P3	: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2009
EXT. P4	: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/4/2010
EXT. P5	: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF RESEARCH OFFICER AND LECTURER (ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY) DATED 01/05/2010
EXT.P6	: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13/12/2010

¶21

/TRUE COPY/

¶22

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶23

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶24

¶25

W.P (C) No . 20046 of 2011

¶26

¶27

Dated, this the 28^th October, 2011

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is a Research Officer in Anthropology Department and is presently holding the charge of Deputy Director (Training) in the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the steps being pursued by the respondents for direct appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Training). The case of the petitioner is that, as per the relevant Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the said post and that only in the absence of eligible candidates for promotion, the post can be filled up by resorting the steps for direct recruitment. It is stated that, in spite of the credentials of the petitioner, she is not being considered by the respondents.

¶30

The claim of the petitioner is sought to be resisted by the first respondent by filing a statement, pointing out that the petitioner is not duly qualified, for not having acquired the 'account test' during the period of probation. It is stated that even by giving the benefit of being a member of the schedule caste community, the petitioner ought to have acquired the test qualification on or before 10.10.2010, i.e 3 years from the date of introduction of the Special Rules and it was in the said

¶31

W.P. (C) No. 20046 of 2011

¶32

: 2 :

¶33

circumstances, that the vacancy was reported to the Kerala Public Service Commission for appointment by way of direct recruitment.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, by virtue of Rule 13 A of Part II KS & SSR, the persons belonging to the scheduled caste are to be granted 3 years time for acquiring the test qualification. With reference to the materials produced, including the I.A. 14790 of 2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the service of petitioner was regularized only on 24.10.2009 and as such the claim of the petitioner is well founded, as the period for acquiring the test qualification is not over.

¶35

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the vacancy was reported to the PSC, on reckoning the period for acquiring the test qualification with reference to the date of promulgation of the Rules. On going through the relevant Rules, it can be seen that, the Rules clearly stipulate the terms otherwise, as contended by the petitioner and this Court finds that the idea and understanding of the concerned officer in reckoning the period for acquiring the test qualification is quite wrong and misconceived. As such, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶36

In the said circumstances, the steps taken by the respondents for having reported the vacancy of Deputy Director (Training) to the

¶37

W.P. (C) No. 20046 of 2011

¶38

: 3 :

¶39

Kerala Public Service Commission is intercepted and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to said post in accordance with law. The proceedings as above shall be finalized as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The Writ Petition is allowed. No cost.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶43

kmd

Mini.P.v. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini.P.v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Sanoosi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam a Vs State of Kerala

N.Lakshmikutty Vs State of Kerala

A.Purushan Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Dinesh Kumar D. Vs the Director of Urban Affairs

Jayan.E.B Vs Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.