Partly allowed

N.P.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016WP(C)/7987/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Government order approving promotion recommendations, the Court observed that while the petitioners eligibility for the specific post was not in dispute, the Government order mandated consideration of qualified employees. The Court directed the company to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment to the appropriate branch.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's claim for appointment as Deputy Manager (Electrical) within two weeks and decide on retrospectivity.

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7987 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.P.GEORGE

¶8

NADUVELIPARAMBIL, PALIYAKARA, NEAR MARKET JUNCTION, THIRUVALLA, (SUPERVISOR,ELECTRICAL SECTION, TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD, THIRUVALLA)

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶12

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TAP,

¶14

TRIVANDRUM 695001

¶15

3. THE TRAVANCORE SUGARS ANDCHEMICALS LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOTR, THIRUVALLA 689104.

¶16

4. THE CHAIRMAN

¶17

TRAVANCORESUGARS AND CHEMICALS LTD, THIRUVALLA 689104

¶18

5. P.M. JOHN,

¶19

DEPUTY MANAGER (MECHANIC), TRAVANCORE

¶20

SUGARSAND CEMICALS LTD, RESIDING AT PULLOCHERIL PUTHENVEEDU,VALANJAVATTOM P.O,THIRUVALLA 689104

¶21

R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R3&4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R5 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW R5 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN THOMAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN R1 AND R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 7987 of 2014 (W)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OFTHE G.O(MS) NO 121/2011/TD DATED 03-09-2011

¶26

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION REGARDING QUALIFICATION OF MR.K.C GEORGE RECEIVED UNDER RTI DATED 10-07-2013

¶27

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-08-2013 ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL, PSD POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE REGARDING LME QUALIFICATION

¶28

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIPLOMA CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE STATE BOARDOF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

¶29

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 05-06-2012

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 01-02-2013 IN ID NO 3/2012 OF ID TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM

¶31

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 14-03-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶32

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28-08-2013

¶33

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THEMINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26-08-2013

¶34

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-02-2014 APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ONE MAN COMMITS FOR THE PAY REVISION TO THE WORKS OF RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-02-2014

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT R3(a): COPY OF GOVERNMEN ORDER DATED 24.2.2014.

¶38

EXHIBIT R3(b): COPY OF AWARD DATED 22.2.2013 IN I.D.NO.3 OF 2012 PASED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM.

¶39

/TRUE COPY/

¶40

PS TO JUDGE

¶41

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶42

W.P(C).No.7987 of 2014

¶43

Dated this the 16^th November, 2016

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:

¶46

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, setting aside Exhibit P11.

¶47

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the prescription of qualification for the post of Deputy Manager in Exhibit P5 report is beyond the scope of Exhibit P1 order and hence is unsustainable.

¶48

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be appointed as the Deputy Manager (Electrical) in the 3^rd respondent Company.”

¶49

The petitioner challenges the approval granted by Exhibit P11 order of the Government dated 24.2.2014 to the recommendations of the one-man Commission as contained in Exhibit P5 on the ground that the Commission had not been appointed to look into the question of qualifications, staff pattern or promotion. It is further contended that the reliance on Exhibit P5, and its approval by Exhibit P11 is arbitrary and illegal, since Diploma holders are given no weightage in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Manager.

¶50

¶51

WP(C).7987/14

¶52

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he is a diploma holder in Electrical Engineering and has a better claim for appointment as Deputy Manager than the 5^th respondent, who is only a certificate holder. It is contended that Exhibit P11, to the extent it denies preferential claim for promotion to diploma holders, is bad in law.

¶54

It is contended by learned counsel for the 5^th respondent that the petitioner is a person, who was appointed as worker in the Electrical Division. The petitioner's Diploma in Engineering is also in electrical branch. In the above circumstances, it is contended that the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Deputy Manager (Mechanical) would not prejudice the petitioner, who does not possess the qualification prescribed for the said post.

¶55

Learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Company would contend that the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) is no longer in existence. However, Exhibit P11 Government order would show that a post of Deputy Manager (Electrical) is also contemplated. The relevant portion of Exhibit P11, which relates to regular promotion, reads as follows:

¶56

¶57

WP(C).7987/14

¶58

“ Regular Promotion

¶59

The workers and staff in the company have no scheme for promotion to higher posts in the officers category. The management of the company are in favour of the demands of the employees for promotion. The employees having 25 years of service with ITI/Diploma working in the Supervisory categories may be considered for promotion as Deputy Manager in the appropriate branches viz. Deputy Manager (Mech.), Deputy Manager (Ele.) Deputy Manager (Production) as and when vacancies arise.

¶60

i. SSLC and ITI certificate with 12 years experience as Supervisor/equated grade and having a total service of 25 years. However, Diploma Certificate holders with 9 years experience will also be eligible on condition that a diploma holder will not supercede an ITI certificate holder who is senior in service, i.e. only in the absence of a senior he can get promotion, on acquiring 9 years of service in the grade of Supervisor and total service of 25 years.”

¶61

In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner, who is raising a claim for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical), cannot successfully challenge the appointment of the 5^th respondent as Deputy Manager (Mechanical). It is not in dispute, the writ petitioner would not be eligible to hold the post, as his qualification is Diploma in Electrical Engineering. However, since Exhibit P11 order specifically states that the employees having 25 years of service with ITI/Diploma working in the Supervisory categories may be considered for promotion as Deputy Manager in the appropriate branches viz. Deputy Manager (Mech.), Deputy Manager (Ele.) Deputy Manager (Production) as and when vacancies arise, I am of the opinion that the 3^rd respondent Company should consider the

¶62

¶63

WP(C).7987/14

¶64

claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Manager (Electrical).

¶65

The 3^rd respondent shall take up the claim raised by the petitioner and pass orders thereon as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The claim of the petitioner for retrospectivity to his appointment shall also be considered by the 3^rd respondent.

¶66

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶67

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶68

vgs16/11

N.P.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.George 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Maroli Vs State of Kerala

Kamco Officers Association Vs State of Kerala

P.B.Ambujakshy Vs N.S.Sudharoopan.

N.P.George Vs State of Kerala

P.L.Sabu Vs the Director