Dismissed

V.Gopalakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/1006/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order regarding seniority claims. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant was not eligible for the benefit of Rule 28(bbb) since he cleared the test after his juniors had already been promoted.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition with Appeals on Order of Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissed; parties to bear respective costs.

V.Gopalakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.1006 OF 2013(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.361/2013 DATED 18-02-2013 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ APPLICANT:

¶10

V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF VASUDEVAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM-691001 (RESIDING AT VRINDAVAN, JANANI NAGAR-44, KOOTTIKKADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691020).

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, KUNNUKUZHI, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695037.

¶15

3 SMT. H.JANAKI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, KUNNUKUZHI, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695037.

¶16

R1-R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶17

THIS OP (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

OP(KAT) No.1006 of 2013

¶20

K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ. -------------------------------O.P (KAT) No.1006 of 2013-Z

¶21

Dated, this the 01^st day of November, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶24

The petitioner, applicant before the Tribunal, a Junior Superintendent working in the Health Services Department, claimed seniority over two juniors, who were promoted earlier. The applicant's promotion was delayed since his test qualification, which was a requirement for promotion, was delayed.

¶25

2. The two juniors, one of whom was impleaded as

¶26

the 3^rd respondent, were promoted on 06.07.1989 having taken the Departmental Test held in November 1988, the results of which were published on 17.02.1989. The petitioner cleared the Departmental Test held in May 1989, the result of which were published on 23.08.1989. The petitioner claimed the benefit of Rule 28(bbb) of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules [“KS&SSR” for brevity].

¶27

3. The Tribunal, however, relied on Note to Rule 28(b)(i)(A) and found that the claim under Rule 28(bbb) cannot be pressed into service since the applicant became

¶28

OP(KAT) No.1006 of 2013

¶29

- 3 -

¶30

test qualified only subsequent to the date of promotion of his juniors. Rule 28(bbb) provided that if any examination or test confers a benefit to an employee, then that benefit will be deemed to be approved; if the test qualification was after 14^th August, 1971, on the day following the last day of the whole examination or test in which he has successfully completed the examination or test by passing one or more subjects. Hence, when vacancies are remaining unfilled, then the promotion would be related to the day following the last day of the test which the person cleared.

¶31

4. In the present case, however, though the applicant appeared in the examination in May, 1989, his juniors were promoted on 06.07.1989 based on their qualifying the Departmental Test on 17.02.1989, their qualifying test having been held in November, 1988. The result of the applicant's test qualification was declared on 23.08.1989, by which time the juniors were promoted and placed in the higher post. Note to Rule 28(b)(i)(A) provided that if there are no qualified hands for promotion to a post on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, then the person who got qualified first thereafter shall be considered for promotion to that post. Here admittedly

¶32

OP(KAT) No.1006 of 2013

¶33

- 4 -

¶34

vacancies were not filled up for reason of there being no test qualified persons. Hence, when some of the employees got test qualified, they were entitled to be considered for promotion, which was carried out; later to which the applicant was promoted. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶35

The Original Petition (KAT) would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.

¶36

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶37

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶38

vku/-

¶39

- 5 -

¶40

OP(KAT) No.1006 of 2013

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 27/03/2012 THE RELEVANT PAGE	ORDER NO.ES2-106163/03/DHS OF THE DIRECTOR ALONG WITH OF THE SENIORITY LIST.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED	APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 02/07/2012.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PUBLIC SER	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VICE COMMISSION.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE THE DISTRICT HOSP 04/07/2012.	LETTER NO.E1-1881/12 OF ITAL, KOLLAM DATED
ANNEXURE A5	TRUE COPY OF THE 12780/12/DMOHK OF OFFICER DATED 05/	LETTER NO.A2- THE DISTRICT MEDICAL 07/2012.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF THE NO.33314/H1/2012/ THE GOVERNMENT.	LETTER H&FWD DATED 03/08/2012 OF
ANNEXURE A7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24/09/2012.	ORDER IN OA NO.1791/2012
ANNEXURE A8	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 29/01/2013	GO(RT) NO.294/2013/H&FWD OF THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 2013 OF THE KERAL THIRUVANANTHAPURA	ORDER IN O.A.NO. 361 OF A ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL M BENCH ATED 18-2-2013.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE WITH ANNEXURES.	ORIGINAL APPLICATION ALONG

¶44

[TRUE COPY]

V.Gopalakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Gopalakrishnan v. the 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

Union of India Vs T.K.Hamsa

Union of India & Others Vs Tomy Mathew

Chairman, Board of Trustees, Vs Mohandas.K.

Ramya Ravindran P., Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

State of Kerala Vs K.K. Soman

M. Jayachandran Vs the State of Kerala