Allowed

P.Janardhanan v. the Director of Survey and Land Records

Kerala HC16 Nov 2019OP(KAT)/63/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected a petitioner’s claim for retrospective promotion to Superintendent and Assistant Director posts. The court held that pending disciplinary proceedings precluded inclusion in the seniority list and subsequent promotion to Superintendent could not be ordered retrospectively without a sealed cover procedure.

What did the court decide?

The original decree was rejected. The Government was directed to consider retrospective promotion on its own discretion.

P.Janardhanan Vs the Director of Survey and… — 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

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP(KAT).No.63 OF 2014(Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA NO.6379/2012 DATED 05-03-2013 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

P.JANARDHANAN, DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT(RETD.) RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE, CHUNDAKKUNNU, ARICHERMALA.P.O, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

3 BABU GANGANATH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, RANGE THRISSUR, SHORNUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680001.

¶16

R1 BY SR.GP SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH

¶17

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶20

The petitioner is the applicant before the Tribunal. The applicant's grievance in the two TAs, which were transferred writ petitions from this Court, was against the denial of promotions to the post of Superintendent of Surveys and the subsequent promotions to the post of Assistant Director of Surveys.

¶21

2. T.A. No.1219 of 2019 was with respect to

¶22

the promotion to the post of Superintendent of Surveys. The applicant was included as Sl. No.118 in Ext.P1 final seniority list of Head Surveyors for the period from 02.02.2002 to 01.01.2004. When the Departmental Promotion Committee [for brevity, 'the DPC'] met on 27.07.2005, normally he should have been included in the zone of consideration. But his name did not figure in Ext.P2 list of the DPC notified by the Government. The juniors of the

¶23

OP(KAT).No.63 OF 2014(Z) 3

¶24

applicant were included in the list. His exclusion was stated to be due to the non-declaration of probation. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that non-declaration of probation cannot be a ground for exclusion from the zone of consideration, especially when his juniors are included therein. But however we have to notice that the non-declaration of probation was also due to a pending disciplinary proceeding. When there is a pending disciplinary proceeding, even if he is included in the select list, after his assessment the same has to be kept in a sealed cover.

¶25

3. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings

¶26

ended in a punishment of censure imposed on 11.06.2009. His probation was also declared retrospectively with effect from 09.3.2006. He was further promoted as Superintendent of Survey and Land Records on 14.03.2007, in a selection subsequent to the imposition of penalty itself. His claim was for

¶27

OP(KAT).No.63 OF 2014(Z) 4

¶28

consideration of retrospective effect of promotion from the date of his junior's promotion. As we noticed above, there cannot be such a direction, especially since there ought to have been a sealed cover procedure initiated, which though was not initiated. In the facts and circumstances, since the disciplinary proceedings ended in imposition of punishment, the sealed cover could not have been opened and would have no effect. Hence, there can be no claim for promotion as on the date of his juniors.

¶29

4. The further claim was for retrospective effect for the promotion granted on 14.03.2007 w.e.f. 09.03.2006, the date of his declaration of probation. The Tribunal left it to be considered by the Government. We need not interfere with the direction issued by the Tribunal, against which the State has not come up in appeal. The consideration shall be made and it shall be the discretion of the Government

¶30

OP(KAT).No.63 OF 2014(Z)

¶31

¶32

to decide either way. As far as the subsequent

¶33

promotion, there can be no case set up when the earlier claim itself was rejected.

¶34

The original petition is rejected. There is

¶35

no order as to costs.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

Sd/-

V.G. ARUN,

JUDGE.

sp/16/11/19

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

OP(KAT).No.63 OF 2014(Z)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 5.3.2013 IN TA NOS 6379/2012 AND 1219/2012
ANNEXURE A11	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION FILED IN WPC NO 27039 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P1	EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 29-6- 2005 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE SENIORITY LIST.
EXHIBIT P2	EXT.P2 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26- 10-2005 PUBLISHING THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS SELECTED FOR PROMOTION AS SUPERINTENDENT
EXHIBIT P3	EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-3-2006 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-12-2005.
EXHIBIT P6	EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-3-2007 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-3-2008 ALONG WITH THE SENIORITY LIST
EXHIBIT P8	EXT.P8 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16-4- 2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-3-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

P.Janardhanan v. the Director of Survey and Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Janardhanan v. the Director of Survey and Land Records

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

The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs C.S.Prem

The Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs Sabu.C.M.

Union of India Vs v.K.Samu

State of Kerala Vs Jeyasanil.R.

K.M.Kailasan Vs Senior Superintendent of Post Office

State of Kerala Vs Manoj Kabeer M.K.