The Writ Petitioner challenged the order refusing his promotion despite attaining the age of 50 years. The Court held that since his order of reinstatement as the junior-most had become final, he could not claim promotion based on age alone. The Court dismissed the petition.
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 A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
WP(C).No. 12796 of 2006 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
K.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,”ARUN SONY” PATTATHANAM P.O.,KOLLAM-2. NOW WORKING AS SPECIAL GRADE SUB-GROUP OFFICER ARYANKAVU DEVASWOM,PUNALUR GROUP TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.D.SREEKUMAR, SC, TDB BY ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL BY SRI.C.VIJAYAN, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-11-2012, THE COURT 03-12-2012 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12796 of 2006 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMBINED SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR SUPTS. AND SPECIAL GRADE SUB GROUP OFFICERS OF THE RESPONDENT.
P2: TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER ROC NO.18320/99/EST. DATED 18.8.99 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.10.01 IN O.P.NO.29003 OF 2001
P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 6.5.2002
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.ROC 18320/99/EST.1. DATED 28.01.2005
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO.ROC 850/05/EST.1 DATED 31.03.05 OF THE RESPONDENT.
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.01.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT ROC NO.18320/99/EST.1.DATED 11.04.06.
P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2002 IN C.C. NO.458/99 OF JUDICIAL 1 CLASS MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
R(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ROC NO.4329/93/EST.(A) DATED 30.05.1994 OF THE BOARD.
R(b): TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ROC 5376/97/EST. DATED 3.7.1999 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
R(c): TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
R(d): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ROC 5376/97/EST. DATED 12.8.1999 OF THE BOARD.
R(e): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7-8-2001
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 12796 of 2006 - W --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3rd December, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 proceedings of the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is contended that by Ext.P9 order his promotion was refused, though he had completed 50 years of age. According to the petitioner, he joined the service of respondents on 16.11.1978 and was promoted to the post of Special Grade SubGroup Officer on 17.9.1991.
W.P.(C) No. 12796 of 2006 - W
2
Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as KCS Rules) and contends that by Ext P9, Ext P3 order is confirmed by which he was not promoted for more than five years. It is his contention that going by the Rules his promotion cannot be reduced for a period more than five years.
W.P.(C) No. 12796 of 2006 - W
3
W.P.(C) No. 12796 of 2006 - W
4
cadre and become eligible for promotion only on the basis of seniority with reference to Ext R(d). He cannot claim promotion merely because he attains 50 years of age ignoring the existence of Ext R(d).
In that view of the matter the petitioner does not have a valid or justifiable reason to challenge Ext. P6 or P9. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
rka
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a government employee can claim promotion solely on attaining the age of 50 years ignoring the order of permanent reinstatement as junior-most consequent upon misconduct.
Whether the limitation period for reduction in rank under Rule 11(1)(v) of KCS Rules mandates a specific time frame for the employee to avail promotion.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Chandrashekhara Pillai
Travancore Devaswom Board
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
