Kerala High Court
Kerala Land Revenue Staff Associtaion vs P.K.Sudheer Babu on 11 June, 2009
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1722 of 2008()
1. KERALA LAND REVENUE STAFF ASSOCITAION,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.K.SUDHEER BABU,"SREELAKSHMY",
... Respondent
2. H.DINESHAN,AVIYIL HOUSE,HOSDURG,
3. B.RAMACHANDRAN,"ARCHANA",NORTH GATE,
4. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY
5. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
6. KEALA REVENUE DEPARTMENT STAFF
7. G.MOTILAL,PRESIDENT,KERALA REVENUE
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUGATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
'C.R'
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.A.NO. 1722 OF 2008,
W.A.NO.1754 OF2008,
W.A.NO.2026 OF 2008,
W.A.NO.2027 OF 2008
&
W.A.NO.503 OF2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
W.A.No.1722 of 2008
The point that arises for decision in this case is whether the ratio of 4:1 between appointment by transfer and by direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector in the Kerala Civil Service (Executive) is to be worked out with reference to the cadre strength of Deputy Collectors or the total cadre strength of Deputy Collectors and Higher Grade Deputy Collectors taken together.
2. The writ petitioners who are respondents 1 to 3 herein were persons included in the rank list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission, for appointment to the post of Deputy Collector. According to them, if the ratio is worked out with WA.1722/08 & CONNECTED CASES 2 reference to the cadre strength of Deputy Collectors, a few more vacancies are available for appointment from the P.S.C list. The Government and the contesting respondents canvassed for the position that the cadre strength of Deputy Collectors should be computed, taking into account the number of higher grade posts also. The post of Deputy Collector (Higher Grade) is created for the purpose of providing promotional avenues and there is a ratio of 3:1 between those posts. Both the posts should be taken together as belonging to the cadre of Deputy Collector, it was contended. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, upheld the contentions of the writ petitioners and directed to ascertain the vacancies available for direct recruitment and issued further consequential directions. Feeling aggrieved by the directions issued by the learned Judge, this appeal is filed by the additional third respondent in the Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, Sri.N.Sugathan, relied on Exhibit R3(d) order, to contend that there is a ratio of 3:1 between Deputy Collectors and Deputy Collectors (Higher Grade). Promotion to the higher grade is only in accordance with the above ratio, which is being ordered whenever there is dearth in the higher grade with reference to that ratio. The duties and functions of both the posts are the same. Exhibit R3(f) posting WA.1722/08 & CONNECTED CASES 3 order of Deputy Collectors for election duty would show that there is no distinction between Deputy Collectors and Deputy Collectors (Higher Grade). With reference to the Special Rules concerning other State Services, it is pointed out that whenever promotion is provided as a method of appointment to a higher post, invariably the procedure under Rule 28 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, like the preparation of DPC list etc. is to be followed. But, in this case, seniormost persons are accommodated in the post of Deputy Collector (Higher Grade), whenever vacancy occurs. So, according to the appellant, the finding of the learned Judge that for the purpose of reckoning the cadre strength of Deputy Collectors, the number of posts in the cadre of Deputy Collectors alone could be taken into account is not correct.
4. We also heard the learned counsel M/s.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, K.R.B.Kaimal and Alexander Thomas, appearing in the connected Writ Appeals, including the learned Government Pleader. They supported the submissions made by learned counsel Sri.N.Sugathan, which we have noted above.
5. Rules 1 and 2 of the Kerala Civil Service (Executive) Branch read as follows:
WA.1722/08 & CONNECTED CASES 4 "1. Constitution.- The Service shall consist of,-
(i) Deputy Collectors (Higher Grade) and
(ii) Deputy Collectors.
2. Appointment.- Appointment as Deputy Collectors shall be made by recruitment by transfer from the Kerala Revenue Service or by direct recruitment.
One fifth of the substantive posts in the permanent cadre in the category of Deputy Collectors shall be filled by direct recruitment.
Appointment to the post of Deputy Collectors (Higher Grade) shall be made by promotion of Deputy Collectors on the basis of seniority."
6. Rule 2 of the above quoted Rules clearly shows that the ratio of 4:1 is applicable for appointment by transfer and direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Collector with reference to the permanent cadre in that category and appointment to the post of Deputy Collector (Higher Grade) is made by promotion having regard to seniority. So, when the Rule expressly provides that the ratio has to be applied with reference to the permanent cadre in the category of Deputy Collectors, the interpretation sought to be placed on that provision by the appellant cannot be accepted. In view of the above position, it is unnecessary to refer to the executive orders like Exhibits R3(d) and R3(f) series. The WA.1722/08 & CONNECTED CASES 5 reference to the explanatory note to the amendment introduced to the Special Rules as per Exhibit R3(a) also, cannot be relied upon to restrict the scope of the specific provisions of the Rules. Exhibit R3(a) is the photostat copy of the amendment introduced to the Special Rules, as per which the post of Deputy Collector (Higher Grade) was also added, as a separate post in the Kerala Civil Service (Executive) Branch. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It has been correctly held by the learned Single Judge that the ratio 4:1 between appointment by transfer and direct recruitment has to be worked out with reference to the cadre strength of Deputy Collectors only. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
W.A.Nos.1754, 2026 & 2027 of 2008 and 503 of 2009.
In view of the judgment in W.A.No.1722 of 2008, these Writ Appeals are also dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE vgs.