IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Uthaman Nayyan, S/o Sankaran N – Respondent
OP(KAT) No. 205 of 2023, OP(KAT) No. 166 of 2023
Decided on : 13-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Kerala State And Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 - Rule 28, (b)(i)(14) - Select list was published - Entitled for notional promotion - O.A's were disposed of with clear finding that act of respondents in O.A. in not promoting respective applicants in these O.As to post of Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, from date on which select list was published and well before retirement from service is illegal and ultra vires – There was no proper reason for further delay in former issuance of promotion order. (Para 12)
Finding of the Court :
After issuance of Annexure-A5 select list and request made before authorities concerned immediately before promotion order, there was no proper reason for further delay in former issuance of promotion order, which was issued by which time, two applicants had retired from service – Court do not see any valid grounds to accede to prayers in these O.Ps filed by State authorities.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Alexander Thomas, J.
The afore-captioned two Original Petitions instituted under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the impugned final verdict rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A(Ekm).Nos.905/2018 and 1222/2018. Petitioners in both the O.Ps are the respondents in the respective O.A's. The sole respondent in the former O.P. is the sole applicant in O.A.(Ekm).No.905/2018. The 4 respondents in the latter O.P are the original applicants in O.A(Ekm).No.1222/2018. It is common ground that the applicants 2 to 4 in the latter O.A(Ekm).No.1222/2018 were already promoted before the verdict was rendered and therefore, their claims had become infructuous. So the claim only in respect of the first applicant in O.A.(Ekm).No.1222/2018 had survived for consideration.
2. The Tribunal after hearing both sides has rendered the impugned common final verdict on 26.06.2019 in the instant O.A(Ekm).Nos.905/2018 and 1222/2018 whereby those O.A's were disposed of with the clear finding that the act of the respondents in the O.A. in not promoting the above respective applicants in these O.As to the post of Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, from the date on which the select list was published on 25.05.2018 and well before the retirement from service on 30.06.2018 is illegal and ultravires and that, their exclusion from the actual promotion merely on the ground that the actual promotion was done by the respondents in the O.A in pursuance of the select list dated 25.05.2018 only on 30.07.2018. is also illegal. Consequently, the Tribunal has found that the aforesaid two respective applicants in these two O.As are entitled for notional promotion to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School with effect from 25.05.2018 and to grant them consequential benefits thereon. A copy of the said common final verdict has been produced as Ext.P6 in the former O.P. and as Ext.P4 in the latter O.P.
3. Heard Sri.Ashok M. Cherian, learned Additional Advocate General, instructed by Smt.Sabeena P. Ismail, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in these two O.Ps and Sri.Murali Pallath, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent in the former O.P/sole applicant therein. As already mentioned hereinabove, the Tribunal has found that the respondents 2 to 4 in the latter O.P has already been promoted before the retirement and before the rendering of the verdict and therefore, they are unnecessary parties. Since we have decided not to admit this case, notice to the first respondent in O.P(KAT).No.166/2023 (first applicant in O.A.(Ekm).No.1222/2018) will stand dispensed with.
4. We will be giving reasons for arriving at a conclusion for the dismissal of these O.P.s hereinafter. Before that, it will be pertinent to refer to the facts of the case in these two matters.
5. The sole applicant in the former O.A was in the feeder source of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Senior) in Government Higher Secondary School and was eligible for consideration of promotion to the next higher category post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School through the DPC process. Whereas the first respondent in the latter O.P. was in the feeder source of Headmaster of Government Higher Secondary School and was entitled to be considered for by-transfer appointment to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. Both the above said appointments to the category of Principal is through the DPC (higher) process.
6. In the case of the former applicant, he was included in Annexure-A1 dated 26.05.2014 seniority list of Higher Secondary School teachers for eligibility to the promoted to the cadre of Principal and the serial number assigned to him in the said afore Annexure-A1 is serial number 518.
7. It is the common ground that the incumbents upto serial no.470 were already promoted to the next category of Principal and at the relevant time, there were about 139 vacanci
Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of KS & SSR Part II stipulated that Government may by order effect promotions/appointments by transfer notionally without monetary benefit of pay and allowances but with consequenti....
Point of law : Denial of right of the applicant for such reassigned dates of promotion in the post of Associate Professor and Professor would amount to flagrant violation of the constitutional right ....
In case of disputes regarding seniority and matters connected with it by reason of any order of Government or any order of an authority subordinate to Government, representations for reconsideration ....
A promotion is effective only from the date it is granted; there is no fundamental right to promotion, and retrospective promotion cannot be claimed absent specific service rules, even when vacancies....
The delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the employee violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. Rule 28(b)(i)(14) of the KS & SSR allows notional promot....
The Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to being filed after the limitation period. On merits, the court found that the promotion of Sri G.K. Venkoba was granted under the reservation....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.