Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan Nair G vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 1965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 6161 of 2008 (H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-----------
UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR G.,
WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR,
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,
N.S.S. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PANDALAM.
BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION (J) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
WP(C).No. 6161 of 2008 (H)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(MS)NO.661/65/EDN.
DATED 13.12.1965.
EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR IN GO(P)NO.54/92/(138)/
FIN. DATED 6.11.92.
EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN GO(P)O.554/84/(597)/FIN.
DATED 27.11.1984.
EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.7.2002 IN
O.P.NO.13985/1998 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXT.P4A- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.2002 IN
WPC.NO.21667 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.30767/LB/03/H.EDN
DATED 25.10.2003.
EXT.P5A- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB4/26905/05
DATED 21.4.2006, 25.10.2003.
EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DP6/7685/07/DTE
DATED 13.4.2007 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR TO
THE PRINCIPAL.
EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 2.8.2007 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.15829L1/0/H.EDN
DATED 30.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P9- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.EB4/33106/04(V)
DATED 8.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9A- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DPI/970/(2)/2000
DATED 17.9.2001.
EXT.P9B- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.34252/L3/03/H.EDN.
DATED18.8.04.
EXT.P9C- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EB4/27925/06/DTE
DATED 2.11.2006.
EXT.P10- TRUE COPY OF THE RULE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY.
EXT.P11- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DP2/25864/03
DATED 9.8.04.
--2--
--2--
WP(C).No. 6161 of 2008 (H)
--------------------------
EXT.P11A- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DPC/29948/05
DATED 3.2.06.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R3A: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
WP(C) No.6161 of 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, while working as a Workshop Instructor, claimed two Time Bound Higher Grades in such post with effect from 01.03.2006. However, this request of the petitioner was turned down by Exts.P6 & P8 orders on the ground that he had obtained two regular promotions, one as Trade Instructor and the second as Workshop Instructor within a period of 16 years and that, therefore, he is not entitled to the two Time Bound Higher Grades on the completion of 16 years of service. The petitioner impugns these orders, as being contrary to facts and having been issued allegedly without proper application of mind.
2. I have heard Smt.Sheela Devi I., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
WP(C) No.6161 of 2008 2
3. I have examined Exts.P6 & P8 orders, which are impugned in this writ petition. The only reason stated therein for denying the petitioner the 8 year Time Bound Higher Grade in the post of Workshop Instructor with effect from 01.03.2006, is that his appointment as Workshop Instructor, cannot be treated as transfer appointment and can be seen only as a promotion. A Counter Affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents, where again they maintain these assertions in support of Exts.P6 & P8.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the post of Workshop Instructor can be filled up, as per the extant Rules, only either by direct recruitment or by transfer. She, therefore, asserts that her client could not have been treated as being promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor, but that he was posted only by transfer. If this is so, obviously the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the Higher Grade. However, this is a pure question of fact, which this Court, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot consider. I deem it appropriate that a competent Authority consider this issue with a specific reference to the WP(C) No.6161 of 2008 3 petitioner's assertion that he was not promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor, but only appointed by transfer.
5. In such circumstances, I quash Exts.P6 & P8 orders to pave way for a fresh consideration of the petitioner's claims by the 2nd respondent in terms of the various applicable Government Orders, including Ext.P1 Government Order, which is relied on by both the petitioner and respondents in favour of their respective contentions. This exercise shall be completed by the 2nd respondent, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.
//True Copy// P.A. to Judge sp/29/03/17