Kerala High Court
C.Balagopalan Nair vs The Commissioner on 10 February, 2016
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 1192 of 2005 (P)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
C.BALAGOPALAN NAIR, SPECIAL GRADE
ASSISTANT, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA
FISHERMENS' WELFATRE FUND BOARD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER, KERALA FISHERMEN'S
WELFARE FUND BOARD, POONKUNNAM, TRISSUR.
2. THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE, KERALA
FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE
WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE.
3. SRI.P.P.ASHRAF, FISHERIES OFFICER,
KERALA FISHERMEN'S WELFARE FUND BOARD, PONNANI
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.)
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KFWFB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO. 1192/2005
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO. B38/86/ DT 29.11.86
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A 662/1993
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT
5.11.99
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO. B106/96 DT 16.05.1997
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DT 2.2.2000
EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED
EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B-7217/2004 DT 20.12.2004
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No.1192 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the promotion of the 3rd respondent who is said to be junior to the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were working as Special Grade Assistants when the 3rd respondent was promoted as Office Manager as per Ext.P7. The promotion was made in accordance with a seniority list produced at Ext.P5. The seniority list at Ext.P5 is finalized in the year 2000. and before finalization a draft seniority list was published and objections called for. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that no objection was submitted by the petitioner. The seniority list too was finalized in the year 2000 and the promotion granted to the 3rd respondent was in the year 2004; after about seven years. The 3rd respondent had enjoyed the seniority for all those years in which time the petitioner did not challenge such assignment.
W.P(C) No.1192/2005 ::2::
2. The petitioner's contention is also that Ext.P1 seniority is upset by Ext.P5. Ext.P1 was the seniority of the persons appointed as Junior Assistants. There the petitioner was senior to the 3rd respondent. The further promotion is to the post of Senior Assistant; which required test qualification. The 3rd respondent acquired the test qualification in November 1990 and the petitioner in December 1992.
3. There was a dispute raised with respect to the promotions; by a Senior Typist, which eventually was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 26.10.1999. The inter-se seniority was directed to be considered as per the Regulation approved by the Board. In the meanwhile all were promoted as Senior Assistants and there was an exemption in acquiring the test qualification, within two years.
4. By the time, Ext.P2 was passed all had acquired test qualification. Hence when inter-se seniority was settled the promotion had to be given effect from the date of test W.P(C) No.1192/2005 ::3::
qualification; especially since the exemption granted was not permanent and limited to two years; when the incumbent in the higher post had to acquire the qualification. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent qualified in the test in November 1990 and was promoted with effect from 01.02.1991. The petitioner qualified in December, 1992 and his promotion was with effect from 01.01.1994, as is evident from Ext.P5. The 3rd respondent hence superseded the petitioner in the higher cadre by reason of his earlier test qualification.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge