2024 Supreme(Ker) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ.
State of Kerala, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, General Education Department And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Yusuff A.M. – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 76 of 2024
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt.Vinitha B., Senior Gp
If a government servant is repatriated after five years, they will be treated as the junior most and cannot claim seniority for promotion.
Headnote:
Seniority - Repatriation for Promotion - The court ruled that the government servant, if repatriated after five years, will be treated as the junior most and cannot claim seniority for promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The case revolved around the entitlement of the first respondent to be repatriated in the post of High School Assistant (HSA) for the purpose of getting promotion as Head Master of High School.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent, who was not confirmed in the post of Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST), was not entitled to be repatriated in the parent cadre due to being absent for more than five years, which would result in loss of seniority.
Issues: The key issue was whether the first respondent was entitled to claim seniority based on original entry as HSA for the purpose of promotion as Head Master of High School.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by Note (3) brought to Rule 8 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, which stated that if repatriation is after five years, the government servant will be treated as the junior most and cannot claim seniority.
Final Decision: The court rescinded the request for repatriation, allowed the original petition, and set aside the impugned judgment.
JUDGMENT
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The short point in this case is whether the first respondent/applicant, who entered service as High School Assistant (HSA) and later appointed as Higher Secondary School Teacher (HSST), is entitled to be repatriated in the post of HSA for the purpose of getting promotion as Head Master of High School. The crux of the issue is that the first respondent/applicant claims seniority based on original entry as HSA. If seniority is not allowable, he cannot claim the post of Head Master of High School.
2. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal ruled in favour of the first respondent/applicant. It is to be noted that the first respondent/applicant was not confirmed in the post of HSST. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute as to his right to be repatriated in the parent cadre. In normal circumstances, such repatriation also would restore the seniority. However, if such absence in the parent cadre is more than five years, law says that such government servant will not be entitled for repatriation. This fact has not been considered by the Tribunal. It is appropriate to refer to Note (3) brought to Rule 8 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958, which reads thus:
“(3) A member of a service appointed to another service in the exigencies of public service in the manner as specified in Note (1) above shall, unless otherwise specified by the Government at the time of relief, be eligible for the benefits in respect of seniority, probation and appointment as full member in such service as envisaged under this rule, only in the event of his reappointment to such service of the parent Department is before the confirmation of his service in the latter Department or within five years from the date of his relief from the Parent Department whichever is earlier. In respect of reappointment after the said period, he shall be eligible to rejoin the service of parent Department as the junior most in the class, category, grade or post in which he was a probationer or an approved probationer on the date of his relief.”
On a mere reading of the above, it is clear that if repatriation is after five years, such government servant will be treated as the junior most in the class, category, grade or post; and no seniority can be claimed.
3. In such circumstances, it is submitted that if the first respondent/applicant lose seniority, he does not want to be repatriated. The submission is recorded.
4. In the light of the submission as above, we order that the request for repatriation stands rescinded. The original petition is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.