Kerala High Court
C.R.Rahakrishnan vs Government Of Kerala on 18 November, 2010
Bench: C.N.Ramachandran Nair, B.P.Ray
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1867 of 2010()
1. C.R.RAHAKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
2. AJMAL KHAN T.K., S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP BY ITS
... Respondent
2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice B.P.RAY
Dated :18/11/2010
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.
....................................................................
Writ Appeal No.1867 of 2010
....................................................................
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard Senior counsel Sri.P.Ravindran appearing for the appellants and Government Pleader for respondents. We have also gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in the Writ Appeal.
2. The appellants are ministerial staff in the Motor Vehicles Department who have acquired educational qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector i.e. Diploma in Automobile Engineering, while in service. In fact, appellants took leave while in service, studied the course and acquired the qualification. Admittedly under the Rules amended in 2008, besides the Diploma in Automobile Engineering, one year experience in an authorised workshop after acquiring the qualification is also required for promotion. Since appellants are in service and they acquired the qualification by taking leave, they do not have the experience to seek W.A. 1867/2010 2 promotion in the quota reserved for ministerial staff. Appellants' case is that when the Rule was amended, all those promoted were dispensed with the requirement of training and they were sent for training by the Government under the scheme prior to the amendment, which provided for training in Government workshops arranged by the Department. According to the appellants, the right of promotion available to ministerial staff to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector is virtually denied by imposing a qualification by way of experience which they cannot acquire in service.
3. Government Pleader referred to the undertaking given by the Advocate General stating that appellants' can avail leave in service and acquire the training experience in workshop in the same way they acquired educational qualification. Appellants appear to be apprehensive about the Government honouring the commitment made by the Advocate General in court.
4. We do not think there is any necessity for the appellants to worry about it because Government Pleader reiterated before us that appellants will be given leave to acquire the experience for the purpose W.A. 1867/2010 3 of promotion. We record this submission and further direct that the respondents should keep in mind vacancies arising in future and grant leave to those senior in the list for promotion so that vacancies are filled up as and when they arise, from persons who would have acquired qualification while in service. Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above direction.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms