Disposed

Abdul Rahiman T. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023WP(C)/15519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the failure of the Kerala Water Authority to effect promotions based on a specific ratio. The court fixed a period for the competent authority to consider the petitioners' representation and decide further action in accordance with the rules.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and take a decision under KS & SSR within one month.

Abdul Rahiman T. Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
WEDNESDAY,THE1STDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/10THKARTHIKA,1945

¶3

WP(C) NO. 15519 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1ABDULRAHIMANT.
AGED49YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNHI,HEADSURVEYOR,PPDCAMPOFFICE,
KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,KASARAGOD-671123RESIDINGAT
THIKOOTTAMHOUSE,P.O.KANHIRAPOIL,KASARAGOD,
PIN-671531

¶6

2SOORAJKUMAR.S.
AGED46YEARS
S/O.SUKUMARANNAIRS.,HEADSURVEYOR,PPDCAMP
OFFICE,KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,JALABHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033RESIDINGAT
KANCHYPURAM,TC-7/374,KALLAMPALLY,VINAYAKANAGAR,
SREEKARYAMP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695017

¶7

3JAMEELE.,
AGED42YEARS
S/O.EBRAHIMKUTTY,SURVEYORGRADEI(H.G.),PPDCAMP
OFFICE,KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,KOLLAM-6911001
RESIDINGATPARANGANMOOTTIL,VADAKKUMTHALAEASTP.O.,
KARUNAGAPALLY,KOLLAM,PIN-690536

¶8

4GOPALAKRISHNAPILLAIV.
AGED44YEARS
S/O.VASUDEVANPILLAI,SURVEYORGRADEI(H.G.),
PPDCAMPOFFICEKOLLAM,KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,
KOLLAM-691001RESIDINGATSANTHITHEERAM,CHIRAKKARA
P.O.,KALLUVATHUKKAL,KOLLAM,PIN-691578

¶9

5LEKHAK.L.,
AGED48YEARS
W/O.BAIJUK.A.,HEADSURVEYOR,PPDCAMPOFFICE

¶10

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶11

¶12

ALAPPUZHA,KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,ALAPPUZHA-688008
RESIDINGATKODIVEEDU,THUMPOLYP.O.ALAPPUZHA,
PIN-688008

¶13

6SUBHAP.
AGED41YEARS
W/O.MURUKESANN.,HEADSURVEYOR,PPDCAMPOFFICE,
KERALAWATERAUTHORITY,KALMANDAPAM,PALAKKAD-678001
RESIDINGATTHEKKETHARA(H),PUDUSSERYP.O.,
PALAKKAD,PIN-678623

¶14

BYADVS.
KALEESWARAMRAJ
APARNANARAYANMENON
CHINNUMARIAANTONY

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶17

2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶18

3 MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WATER AUTHORITY JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶19

4 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD & GL), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN", VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶20

5 CHIEF ENGINEER (WASCON) KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALTHARA JUNCTION, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶21

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶22

¶23

SRI.PMJOHNY,SCFORKERALAWATERAUTHORITY

¶24

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON01.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioners state that they are working in the post of Head Surveyor, Surveyor Grade I in the Kerala Water Authority. They contend that the sanctioned strength of Asst. Engineer in the Kerala Water Authority is 404. According to them, by applying the 6:4 ratio, 242 vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment, and the remaining 162 are to be filled up by promotion. Placing reliance on various provisions of Ext.P2 rules, the petitioners contend that 121 vacancies are to be filled up amongst the Diploma holders and the remaining 41 are to be filled among certificate holders.

¶29

They assert that the ratio between Draftsman Grade I, and Head Surveyor/Surveyor Grade I and the feeder category are to be maintained in the ratio 20:1, respectively. They assert that as per the above ratio, 6 vacancies are to be earmarked for persons belonging to and working as Surveyor Grade I and Head Surveyor.

¶30

They also assert that the respondents are refusing to effect promotion by applying the ratio against cadre strength and according to them,

¶31

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶32

¶33

this would violate the rights guaranteed to them under the Rules as well as the

¶34

Constitution. It is on these assertions that this Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

i) To declare that the 3rd respondent is bound to make promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer by applying the ratio specified in Ext.P2 special rules against cadre strength and not against number of vacancies.

¶36

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to promote 6 persons from the category of Surveyor Gr.I/Head Surveyor from Diploma quota to the post of Assistant Engineer.

¶37

iii) To direct the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶38

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would refer to

¶39

Ext.P2 as well as Note 3 to Rule 5 of the KS & SSR to substantiate his

¶40

contention that the action on the part of the respondents cannot be sustained. The learned counsel highlighting the grievance of the petitioners, submits that

¶41

they have preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 3rd respondent and requests that the 3rd respondent be directed to consider the same and take a

¶42

decision in accordance with law.

¶43

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

¶44

submits that directions can be issued to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P6

¶45

representation as the said authority is the competent authority to consider the same.

¶46

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶47

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to take up Ext.P6 representation in the light of the relevant Rules as well as the provisions of KS & SSR and take a decision in accordance with law within a period of one month. If the decision taken by the competent respondents favor the petitioners and if it comes out that promotions have been effected in violation of the Rules as well as the provisions of KS&SSR, it would be open to the respondents to rework the same to make it in tune with the extant Rules and to ensure that no one is prejudiced. Before carrying out such an exercise, affected parties shall be heard.

¶49

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent to ensure compliance.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶52

IAP

¶53

W.P.(C.) No.15519 of 2023

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15519/2023

¶56

PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS:

¶57

ExhibitP1TRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLISTAND
CIRCULARNO.10369/E2(A)/2020/KWADATED
23.03.2023ISSUEDBYTHE4THRESPONDENT.
ExhibitP2TRUECOPYOFTHEGAZETTENOTIFICATION
NO.G.O(P)NO.1/2023/WRDDATED27.01.2023.
ExhibitP3TRUECOPYOFTHEPROMOTIONORDER
NO.KWA/JB/E4(A)/161/1994DATED12.04.2023
ISSUEDBYTHEDEPUTYCHIEFENGINEER.
ExhibitP4TRUECOPYOFTHEPROMOTIONORDER
NO.KWA/JB/E4(A)/161/1994DATED22.02.2023
ISSUEDBYTHEDEPUTYCHIEFENGINEER.
ExhibitP5TRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLIST
NO.4235/E4/2020/KWADATED29.03.2023.
ExhibitP6TRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED
13.04.2023PREFERREDBYTHE2NDPETITIONER
BEFORETHE3RDRESPONDENT.

Abdul Rahiman T. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahiman T. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreeja K.N Vs State of Kerala

S. Jayan Vs State of Kerala

R Satheesan Vs the Secretary, Quilon District State Transport Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd.

C.Pavithran Vs 1. Union of India

Board of Directors Kalloorkad Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank LTD-2605, Vs Manuel Mathew

Suresh Kumar P.K Vs Union of India