Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
Rasha K – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd – Respondent
WP(C) No. 24173 of 2017
Decided on : 03-06-2024
SENIORITY - Promotion and Eligibility - Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958; Special Rules of Kerala State Beverages Corporation - The court interpreted the provisions of the KS&SSR and the Special Rules, emphasizing that promotions should be based on the qualifications and eligibility of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence. The court concluded that the petitioner, being the first qualified candidate, was entitled to preference in seniority over others, despite the Corporation's reliance on PSC advice seniority. The court highlighted the principle that promotions must consider the time of vacancy, not the timing of appointments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, having been qualified for promotion to Assistant Manager/Accountant, claimed seniority over other respondents who were promoted later. The Corporation delayed her promotion until others in the feeder category acquired qualifications, despite existing vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was qualified at the time of her probation declaration and that the Corporation's delay in promoting her was arbitrary. The court upheld her claim for preference in seniority based on her qualifications and the relevant rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to preference in seniority over respondents 4 to 10 based on her qualifications and the timing of promotions as per the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that promotions should be determined by the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and that the petitioner, being the first qualified candidate, was entitled to seniority over others who were promoted later.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, declaring that the petitioner is entitled to preference in seniority over respondents 4 to 10, with seniority reckoned from the date specified in a prior judgment.
JUDGMENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
Dispute regarding inter-se seniority between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 10, in the post of Assistant Manager/Accountant in the first respondent, Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd., is the subject matter of this writ petition.
2. The petitioner entered the services of the first respondent on 12.12.2011 as Assistant Gr.-II. Her probation was declared on 11.12.2012. She was promoted as Assistant Gr.-I with effect from 12.12.2012. As per proceedings dated 24.07.2014, the probation was declared with effect from 26.12.2013. Assistant-I is the feeder category of Assistant Manager/Accountant. Rule 38 of the Special Rules of the Corporation stipulates the qualification for the post of Assistant Manager/ Accountant, by promotion as, “I class M.Com/ MBA/Inter ICWA/Inter CA/holding certificate proving successful pass in training conducted by the IMG”. The petitioner had obtained MBA degree and was duly qualified as on the date of declaration of probation. On declaration of probation she became eligible for promotion. According to the petitioner, although eleven vacancies of Assistant Manager/Accountant existed in the Corporation on the date she became eligible for promotion, she was not being promoted.
3. Thereupon the petitioner gave a representation to the Managing Director of the Corporation seeking promotion. This was replied as per Ext.P6. Therein it was stated that, the other employees in the feeder category have not acquired the necessary qualification and that, upon completion of the IMG training (which is one among the optional qualifications) promotions will be made based on the PSC advice seniority for the original appointment. Seeking grant of promotion, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(c) No.19952/2014. Therein the first respondent Corporation filed a counter stating that, for effecting promotion, performance appraisal is to be conducted by the advisory committee and that on completion of such procedural formality, promotion will be effected. As per Ext.P9 judgment dated 03.02.2015, this Court directed promotion to be effected within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter, as per Ext.P10 proceedings dated 29.06.2015, promotions were effected. In Ext.P10 the petitioner was placed at seniority No.8. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get preference in seniority over respondents 4 to 10, she being the first to be qualified.
4. I have heard learned counsel Sri. S.P.Arvindakshan Pillai on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. Naveen T. on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. K.T.Shyam Kumar and Sri.U.Balagangadharan, on behalf of the other contesting respondents. I have also perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.
5. According to the petitioner, as on the date of the declaration of probation in the post of Assistant Gr.-I, which is the feeder category to the post of Assistant Manager/Accountant, she was duly qualified and eligible for promotion. The other employees in the feeder category were not qualified. There existed 11 vacancies in the promotion post. Promotions were not effected and it was delayed till the others in the feeder category also got qualified. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for preference in seniority. This is so in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958(KS&SSR) which is made applicable to the Corporation. The stand of the Corporation that seniority in promotion will be in accordance with the original PSC advice seniority, is illegal. Promotions are to be decided upon with reference to the time of occurrence of the vacancies and not the time of making appointments, it is urged.
6. The learned counsel for the Corporation and the contesting party respondents would contend that, the conditions of service of employees of the Corporation are regulated by the Spe
Promotions in public service must be based on the qualifications of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, and not on the timing of appointments or subsequent qualifications of other candidate....
Promotions in public service must be determined based on the qualifications and eligibility of candidates at the time of vacancy occurrence, not the date of appointment, ensuring that qualified candi....
The right to promotion and seniority under the Special Rules must be upheld, ensuring eligible candidates are prioritized over direct recruits.
The principle of seniority-cum-merit mandates fair consideration for promotions, and failure to do so violates fundamental rights.
The court established that promotions must adhere to seniority rules based on continuous service, invalidating promotions conducted without a proper inter-se seniority list.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
Point of Law : The word used in the relaxation rules is "may" and therefore, the same would mean that relaxation may be given at the discretion of the competent authority.
The claim for restoration of seniority is barred by delay and laches, as the promotions of junior candidates were not timely challenged, affirming the necessity of prompt legal action in service matt....
Eligible junior's vested right to promotion precedes seniors' conditional consideration under relaxatory note in recruitment rules.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
