This Court dismissed an original petition filed by the State challenging the Tribunal's order allowing probationers' appeal. The Court held that the impugned order stands affirmed by Division Bench precedents and was not liable to interference.
The Original Petition filed by the State and Director of Fisheries fails and is dismissed.
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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/13TH SRAVANA, 1938
OP(KAT).No. 2770 of 2012 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 2099/2012 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14-05-2012
PETITIONER(S):
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENTS :
INSPECTOR OF FISHERIES (MECHANIZATION), AZHIKODE, TRICHUR.
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRADE II, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, WEST HILL KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
OP(KAT).No. 2770 of 2012 (Z)
ADDL.5th RESPONDENT :- NASEERA C.H., KOTTAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELANGADI.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM, PIN 673648.
(Addl.R5 impleaded as per order dated 4.8.2016 in I.A.No.1329/2013)
R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT).No. 2770 of 2012 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :-
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF T.A.2099/2012 OF THE KAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.
True copy
P.A to Judge
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
O.P.(KAT).No.2770 of 2012
Dated this the 4th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
This Original Petition was filed nearly four years back, by
the State and the Director of Fisheries, feeling aggrieved by the verdict dated 14.5.2012 passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.2099/2012. Fact remains that, despite the several postings earlier, the matter is still to be admitted and hence put
up for consideration before this bench.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
2
respondent/2nd petitioner herein, the applicants were provisionally promoted to the cadre of Sub Inspector of Fisheries, which is a post in the 'Executive Wing' of the very same Department. As per the said order, it was made clear that the promotion and appointment by transfer to the post of Sub Inspector of Fisheries would be strictly provisional and until such time the regular candidates recruited through the PSC joined duty; alerting the beneficiaries concerned that they would have no claim for seniority over the regular hands to be advised by the PSC. It is stated that the applicants came to be appointed to the post of Sub Inspector of Fisheries as above and subsequently, they were promoted on a provisional basis, as Inspector of Fisheries as well, vide Ext.P3 order dated 9.11.2001. In the due course, the 2nd respondent published the final seniority list of the Lower Division Clerks of the Department as on 1.1.1999 as borne by Ext.P4 order dated 10.5.2002, wherein the applicants were listed at Serial Nos.6, 10, 143 and 144 respectively.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
3
working earlier; despite a lien in the said wing by virtue of their position in the cadre of L.D.C. Claiming promotion in the Ministerial wing, they submitted representations at different levels but the same was not acted upon by the Authorities concerned. In the meanwhile, a similarly situated person by name Smt.D.Vijayamma who was junior to the 1st applicant, had moved the Government claiming to be re-posted as LDC by ordering reversion, so as to enable her to pursue her virtues by virtue of the position in the Ministerial wing. Simultaneously, the said person approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.18616/2003 which was disposed of as per Ext.P10 judgment dated 16.6.2003, directing the Government to consider the claim. Pursuant to the said direction, the claim was considered and rejected as per Ext.P11 order passed by the 2nd respondent, which was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.25857/2003 filed before this Court.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
4
KLT 766 (F.B.)] as to interpretation of Rule 8 of Part II of KS & SSR; allowed the Writ Petition vide Ext.P13. It was challenged by the State by way of W.A.Nos.1253/2006 and 1502/2006 wherein interference was declined and the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed as per Ext.P14. Claiming for the similar relief, the applicants approached this Court by filing W.P. (C)No.11320/2008, which came to be transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where it was renumbered as T.A.No.2099/2012.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
5
absolutely no material was produced by the Government before the Tribunal to draw an inference to the fact that the service of the applicants was regularized in the Executive wing and that their probation was declared. Accordingly, it was held that, they were only continuing on a provisional basis and that they had a lien in the Ministerial wing. The version of the applicants was accepted and the T.A. filed before the Tribunal was allowed as per Ext.P1 order, which in turn is now under challenge in this Original Petition preferred by the State and the Director.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
6
KS & SSR, the relief sought for by the applicants was not liable to be entertained and there is a total misconception of law, which resulted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, requiring interference by this Court, submits the learned Senior Government Pleader.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
7
applicants that they would not be having any claim to continue in the post. In so far as the service was not regularized in the Executive wing and their lien remained in the Ministerial wing itself, as borne by the placement given in the final seniority list published by the 2nd respondent in respect of LDC, no further submissions could have been made from the Government/ Director, as now sought to be projected before this Court. It was in the said circumstance, that the O.A. filed by the applicants was allowed which is not assailable under any circumstance, submits the learned counsel.
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
8
by the learned Single Judge of this Court, which stands affirmed by a Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1502 & 1253/2006, as borne by Ext.P14. No case is put forth that, the said verdict has been subjected to challenge and as such, the position has become final. The benefit sought to be extended to the applicants was only the benefit which was extended to a similarly situated person; that too a junior to the 1st applicant. This alone has been ordered by the Tribunal in the instant case as well. We find absolutely no tenable ground so as to call for interference.
The Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
skj
True copy P.A to Judge
O.P.(KAT)No.2770 of 2012
9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Note II to Rule 8 of Part II of Kerala Service Rules applies to a provisional promotion granted before 1986.
Whether the Kerala Administrative Tribunal committed an error of law in allowing the appeal of probationers seeking transfer from one wing to another within the same department.
Whether the State of Kerala can annul the beneficiary order passed by the Tribunal in T.A. no. 2099/2012.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 3 enactments
State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government, Fisheries Department
Director of Fisheries
M.K. Mohanan
V. Karthikeyan
K. Prabhakaran
Naseera C.H.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
