SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ker) 352

BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, MALIMATH
HARIDASAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Training may be a qualification prescribed for appointment; training may be a requirement demanded after appointment. Dass the period of training affect the question of seniority under the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS & SSR for short)? This, therefore, is the question posed for consideration in this Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appellants, Diploma holders in Engineering, were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Instructor Grade II on 8th August, 1966. Both of them joined duty in October 1966. Respondents 3 and 4 did not apply for the post of Instructors, but applied, pursuant to a different notification for the post of Instructor Trainees. The notification stated that the applications were invited 'for selection for training and subsequent appointment' as Instructors. They were selected as trainees and advised for training in July 1966 and were subsequently appointed as Instructor Grade II only in August 1968, about two years after the appellants were appointed. Respondents 3 and 4, however, have been assigned ranks 621 and 599. given seniority over the appellants who have been given ranks 629 and 635. Contending that they are en























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top