Disposed

Sijo.S Vadakkan, v. Bavakutty. T

Kerala HC1 Mar 2024OP(KAT)/24/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that PGDCA from a Central Govt institute qualifies for System Analyst post. While refusing to interfere with the Tribunal's order upholding respondent's promotion, the Court directed Government to consider the petitioner for the System Administrator vacancy within three weeks pending Special Rules incorporation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without interfering with impugned order; Government directed to consider petitioner for System Administrator vacancy within 3 weeks.

Sijo.S Vadakkan, Vs Bavakutty. T — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶7

AGAINST ORDER DATED 02.08.2023 IN O.A.NO.1030/2022 BEFORE THE
HON’BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

¶8

PETITIONER/S/RESPONDENT NO.10 IN O.A.:

¶9

SIJO.S VADAKKAN,

¶10

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O V T SEBASTAIN, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER,
(NOW WORKING AS SYSTEM ANALYST) GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING
COLLEGE, THRISSUR -680009.RESIDING AT VADAKKAN HOUSE,
KURUMALA P.O.,VELOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680586

¶11

BY ADVS.
S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SNEHA ROSE
P.S.ARUNA

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/APPLICANT/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 9 IN O.A.:

¶13

1BAVAKUTTY. T,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. THANGAL KUTTY, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER (HIGHER GRADE),
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BARTON HILL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035, RESIDING AT 8C, CREATION
PARK RESIDENCY, NH BYPASS ROAD, KULATHOOR, KARIMANAL
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695583

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, KERALA, PIN - 695001

¶15

3 THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶16

4 THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMAVILASOM STREET, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶17

5 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR AND THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (L) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶18

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶19

2

¶20

6 DHANYA P.S., COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, RAJIV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686501

¶21

7 ABID THARAVATTATH, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD ., PIN - 678633

¶22

8 GIJIMOLE.M, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BARTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035

¶23

9 SUSHAMA V, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695016

¶24

10 SHARAFUDEEN.A, COMPUTER PROGRAMMER, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695016

¶25

BY ADV S.VISHNU

¶26

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN
FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2024

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE(J)

¶31

The Departmental Promotional Committee, (for short “the DPC”), while considering the promotion of the applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, who is the respondent herein, found that, the qualification obtained by the respondent, PGDCA, is not sufficient for the purpose of promotion to the post of ‘System Analyst’. This was challenged before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1030 of 2022 dated 02.08.2023. The Tribunal sustained the challenge and the original promottee is before us in this original petition. The qualification required for the said post is as follows:

¶32

xxxxx

¶33

First or Second Class Bachelors Degree in any branch of Engineering from a recognised University after undergoing regular course of study with A level Certificate from DOE/PGDCA recognised by Government or University.

¶34

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶35

¶36

Two years experience as Computer Operator/Programmer in the Department.

¶37

The first respondent obtained qualification of PGDCA from TCIL – IT, a Government of India Enterprise under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology. The DPC holds a view that, since it was not an ‘A level’ certificate issued by the State Government or University, the first respondent was not qualified. The first respondent raised his complaint before the Government of Kerala and a committee was constituted. The committee submitted a report on the similarity and equivalency of the syllabus of PGDCA offered by TCIL – IT with similar courses offered in Kerala, which is produced as Annexure - A22.

¶38

The report reads thus:

¶39

With reference to the above we submit the following report.

¶40

The syllabus of PGDCA offered by TCIL-IT has 65 – 70% similarity with the PGDCA offered by State government institutes like the LBS Centre for Science and Technology.

¶41

The TCIL- IT PGDCA syllabus mentions about a project component. However, the mark list submitted by the incumbent does not show marks of

¶42

¶43

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶44

project. It could be that the project is conducted internally only.

¶45

Hence the syllabus of the PGDCA offered by TCIL-IT may be considered as equivalent to the syllabus of PGDCA programmes offered by state government institutes like the LBS Centre for Science and Technology.

¶46

In spite of such report, the first respondent was not considered for the said post and this resulted in filing an original application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, noting the stipulations of the qualifications, found that, the first respondent was eligible for the post as he had obtained PGDCA from the institute recognised by the Government of India. This is questioned by the petitioner herein, who was promoted to the post of System Analyst. He was promoted with effect from September 2022.

¶47

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

¶48

On a mere look at the stipulations in the qualifications,

¶49

¶50

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶51

we are satisfied that the first respondent is having necessary qualification. What is required to satisfy the qualification for the said post is PGDCA, recognised by Government or University and nowhere, it is stipulated that it should be from the Government of Kerala itself. If PGDCA is issued by a recognised institute by the Central Government or State Government, that would be a sufficient qualification for the said post. The qualification was prescribed by the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2010 (for short “the Special Rules,). The Special Rules only emphasis that, the qualification should have a recognition from the Government or University. We do not understand that, why the Government constituted a committee to find out whether the qualification of the first respondent was sufficient, equivalent or not. It is not within the realm of the Government to find out whether the qualification is sufficient or equivalent, if such a qualification is issued and recognised by the Government of India. In the absence of any other stipulation that, it should be only from the Government of Kerala or any other University in the State, it has to be assumed that any recommended qualification issued by the Government of Kerala or any University in India would be sufficient qualification for the purpose of the post.

¶52

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶53

7

¶54

We find absolutely no merit in this original petition. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that, a vacancy in the post of System Administrator was created as per Government order dated 12.07.2021. According to the learned Counsel, absolutely there is no bar in considering the petitioner or first respondent in the above post. In the last time, we sought instructions from the learned Government Pleader that, whether there is any vacancy for the post of System Administrator. The learned Government Pleader submits a written statement, which reads thus:-

¶55

It is imperative to clarify that despite the creation of the System Administrator post in the Technical Education Department as per the Government Order GO(Ms) 298/2021/HEDN dated 12.07.2021, the modalities pertaining to appointment procedures and requisite qualifications have not yet been conclusively determined. The Director has not furnished any proposal in this regard to Government for inclusion of the post of System Administrator in the Special Rules of the Department. Hence the petitioner cannot be accommodated in the post of System Administrator until such time as these parameters are definitively established and incorporated into Special Rules.

¶56

¶57

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶58

The reasons stated in the written statement is that since the Director had not furnished any proposal in the Special Rules, it cannot be possible for considering the filling of the vacancy for the time being. It is to be noted that the post has been sanctioned by the Government. It may be true that the post has not been incorporated in the Special Rules. This is a matter where the petitioner will be reverted consequent upon promotion of the first respondent. The petitioner cannot find fault with such situation. The situation was created by the DPC by their non-application of mind and the Government also failed to act within time. In such situation, it is appropriate that the Government to consider the appointment of petitioner in the above post, subject to incorporation the above post in Special Rules. In the particular circumstances of the case, appropriate decision shall be taken by the Government in this regard within three weeks.

¶59

With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of, without interfering with the impugned order.

¶60

It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent will retire on 31.05.2024 and the petitioner will

¶61

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶62

9

¶63

be considered for the said vacancy without further convening of the DPC. It is noted that the petitioner has been already selected by the DPC, but he is not included in the selection list. There is no necessity for further conducting a DPC for appointing the petitioner for the post of System Analyst.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE

¶68

RK

¶69

OP(KAT) NO. 24 OF 2024

¶70

¶71

APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 24/2024

¶72

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶73

Exhibit P1RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL RULES
NAMELY KERALA TECHNICAL EDUCATION
SERVICE (AMENDMENT RULES) 2010
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (RT)
NO.1412/2022/ HEDN ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 23.9.2022
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE O. A NO. 1030 OF 2022
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT DATED 3.12.2022
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/ 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. NO. 260/2023 FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ APPLICANT
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT/APPLICANT DATED 29.3.2023
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS
6,7,8 & 10 /RESPONDENTS 5, 6, 7, 9 AND
10

¶74

Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2023 IN
OA NO 1030/2022 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL

¶75

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶76

`Exhibit R1(a)`	`True` `cop` `32/2023/HED` `the Joint` `Department.`	`y` `of` `the` `N. dated 28.12.2023` `Secretary, Higher`	`G.O.(P)No.` `issued by` `Education`
`Exhibit R1(b)`	`True` `cop` `134/2024/HE` `the Joint` `Department.`	`y` `of` `the` `DN dated 24.01.2024` `Secretary, Higher`	`G.O.(P)No.` `issued by` `Education`
`Exhibit R1(c)`	`True` `co` `No.E2/945/2` `issued by` `Engineering`	`py` `of` `the` `4/G.E.C.B.H. dated` `the Principal,` `College, Barton Hi`	`Order` `24.01.2024` `Government` `ll.`

Sijo.S Vadakkan, v. Bavakutty. T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sijo.S Vadakkan, v. Bavakutty. T

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

Dr. Pragash R., Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Sheela K.L., Vs State of Kerala

Balan C Vs Sri. E.Magesh

Union of India Vs G.Mary Thomas

Aneesh M Vs Malappuram Municipal Council

Anitha.P.B, Vs State of Kerala