Karnataka High Court
Miss Josephine D Souza vs The Chairman on 23 June, 2014
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO.23980 OF 2010 (S-PRO)
BETWEEN
MISS.JOSEPHINE D SOUZA,
D/O LATE CASMIR D SOUZA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O D.NO.6-12-55(1),
"CAALJOS" BEHIND KARAVALI COLLEGE,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
KODIAL, MANGALORE-06.
.. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAGHUNANDAN.M.G. FOR VRK ADVS.)
AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN,
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST,
PANAMBUR,
MANGALORE-10.
2. THE SECRETARY,
THE ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,
NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST,
PANAMBUR,
MANGALORE-10.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAYAPPA.Y.HADAGALI, ADV. FOR DUA ASSTS.)
2
THIS W.P FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS ON 19.5.10
AT ANNEX-J AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner submits that the respondents have issued Circular dated 19.5.2010 by which it is stated that they are proposed to fill up two temporary posts of Assistant P R O by upgradation. The said temporary upgradation is from the Class three employees of the Port who possess educational qualification of degree from the recognized University and 10 years experience in public relation work of which at least five years work experience in guest house of large company/government guest house in supervisory capacity. It is further stated in the Circular that educational qualification may however be relaxable in case of employees having more experience of work in the guest house.
2. The petitioner in response to the Circular expressed her willingness to the respondents with a request to consider her 3 case for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer and further it is stated that she possessed the requisite qualification of degree and also 10 years experience and five years in a supervisory capacity in the guest house. There were two posts for which the notification was issued. Despite the fact that willingness has been provided by the petitioner, respondent filled up only one post and not the other. Hence she filed the present writ petition seeking direction to the respondents and to set aside the endorsement dated 30.07.2010.
3. The second requirement that one must serve in the supervisory capacity at least five years for which, service in the P R Section is equivalent for which the learned counsel referred the proceedings of the D P C held on 28.3.2014. During the pendency of this petition, case of the petitioner has been considered on 16.4.2014 and petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant P R O.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent files statement of objections and it is contended that as on the date of consideration, petitioner had not put in five years experience in 4 the supervisory capacity in the guest house. The learned counsel referred Annexure-N dated 30.7.2010 and submitted that the petitioner possessed 10 years experience but not possessed five years experience for having worked in the guest house. Hence it is submitted to dismiss this petition.
5. I have heard both. The Circular issued calling for willingness from the concerned for upgradation to the post of Assistant P R O with a requisite qualification that one should put in 10 years service in public relation out of which five years as supervisor in the guest house. The question would be, whether the petitioner has put in five years in guest house or not is not coming out from the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she served 10 years in the public relations, that the guest house comes within the office of the public relations. Accordingly, service spent in both P.R.O as well as guest house is one and the same. To fortify his submission, the learned counsel referred the proceedings of the respondent dated 28.3.2014 in which at item No.6, it is referred that "Though the R.R says five years guest house experience, in the case of Sl.No.4 her duty as Receptionist 5 widely covers the requirement of R.R. Moreover, guest house experience for a lady official cannot be strictly adhered to and the guesthouse is also part of PR Section". This resolution clarifies the position that the principle of relaxation applicable in case of qualifications and also experience in the guest house and the discretion is left with the respondent. The petitioner undisputedly held the degree and according to her she has put in 10 years of which five years in the PR Section, which should have been considered treating the period spent in the PR Section for the purpose of consideration of petitioner's case to the post in question. When the respondents' proceedings itself shows that five years experience in guest house is relaxable for a lady official since it cannot be strictly adhered to for the reason guest house is also part of P R Section, this relaxation is extended in the proceedings dated 28.3.2014 which should have been applied at the time of consideration of case of the petitioner initially in 2010. The discretion which vests with the respondent has to be exercised in accordance with law.
6. Now the petitioner has been promoted to the post but her right to be promoted to the post is illegally denied in 2010. 6 Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted with effect from 2010 when the other post of Assistant P R O was filled, for the purpose of seniority and consequential monetary benefits, and respondents are directed to pass appropriate order within a period of three months from today. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKD