IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
Dr. P.T. Anandan, S/o.Late Sri.Thankappan – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sunny George – Respondent
O.P.(KAT).Nos.221, 161, 184, 191, 193, 211, 229, 241, 258 & 308 of 2022 & 135, 231 & 360 of 2023
Decided on : 29-10-2024
(A) Kerala State & Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) – Seniority determination – The Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order regarding inter se seniority of Assistant Professors was upheld, emphasizing that seniority should be based on the date of entry into the cadre and not on re-designation alone. (Paras 11, 12, 15)
(B) Recruitment and promotion – The court clarified that promotions and re-designations must adhere to the established rules and cannot be challenged belatedly if acted upon. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case: The case involved disputes over the seniority of Assistant Professors in the Medical Education Service, with multiple litigations arising from the lack of statutory rules governing recruitment and promotions. The Tribunal's order was challenged regarding the classification of posts and seniority determination.
Findings of Court: The court upheld the Tribunal's findings but directed the Government to finalize the seniority list of Assistant Professors within three months, ensuring adherence to the KS&SSR.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of the Government's classification of posts and the criteria for determining seniority among Assistant Professors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniority must be determined based on the date of entry into the cadre, and re-designation does not alter the original entry date.
Result: The O.P.(KAT)'s were disposed of by upholding the Tribunal's order with directions for finalizing the seniority list.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
As these O.P.(KAT)’s impugn a common order dated 16.03.2022 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.289 of 2018 and connected cases, and involve a common issue regarding the manner of determining the inter se seniority of incumbents in the cadre of Assistant Professor in the Medical Education Service of the State, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment.
The facts in brief:
2. The recruitment and promotion to the various posts in the medical services of the State are not governed by any statutory rules but by executive orders issued by the State Government from time to time. This has been the cause for great consternation among both aspirants to the posts as well as incumbents thereof. Further, the non-framing of any rule/guidelines for the determination of inter se seniority among persons appointed to a post on the same day has only exacerbated the problem and added to the misery of those serving in those posts. It is not surprising therefore that there have been multiple rounds of litigation before the State Administrative Tribunal as well as before this Court without any final resolution of the issue. Through this judgment, we make yet another attempt to resolve the said issue.
3. The teaching posts in the Medical Education Service initially comprised of the following posts viz. (i) Professor/Associate Professor and (ii) Reader/Assistant Professor. The posts in each of these categories constituted separate cadres for the purposes of recruitment. Over the years the hierarchy of posts increased in number and by 2000, the teaching posts in the Department swelled to five viz. (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor (iii) Assistant Professor (iv) Senior Lecturer and (v) Lecturer. While the posts in categories (i) to (iii) constituted separate cadres for the purposes of recruitment, there was some ambiguity as to whether the posts in categories (iv) and (v) constituted a common cadre or not. An indication that the two posts were not envisaged to be part of a common cadre was found in a Government Order G.O.(P) 145/2000/H&FWD dated 16.06.2000 wherein, in the context of revision of scales of pay and allowances of the teaching staff of Medical Colleges, it was stated as follows:
It was also made clear in the said G.O. that Lecturers without PG Degree would only be granted a higher scale of pay of Rs.12000-18000 on completion of 10 years of physical teaching experience without any change in designation and that they would not be eligible for any further promotion till they acquired the PG Degree in the respective discipline (emphasis supplied).
4. The consequential amendment in the recruitment rules was effected through G.O.(MS)No.09/2005/H&FWD dated 10.01.2005 whereby separate qualifications were prescribed for recruitment to the posts of Sr.Lecturer and Lecturer, with direct recruitment through the Kerala Public Service Commission being the mode of recruitment for both posts. The minimum qualification for the post of Sr.Lecturer was fixed as PG Degree in the respective discipline whereas the base qualification for the post of Lecturer was fixed as MBBS.
5. The recruitment rules were further amended in 2008 through G.O.(MS)No.100/2008/H&FWD dated 07.04.2008 where the posts in the teaching cadre were categorised as (i) Professor (ii) Associate Professor (iii) Assistant Professor (iv) Sr. Lecturer and (v) Lecturer. The mode of appointment to the posts in categories (i) to (iii) was by promotion from the immediate lower category of posts a
Seniority among Assistant Professors must be determined by the date of entry into the cadre, not merely by re-designation, as per the KS&SSR.
The court upheld the government's order rectifying seniority to ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional principles.
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 ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 2003 Rules supersede any contrary provision in an earlier legal instrument, and the requirement of five years of service in the feeder gra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition for retrospective promotion under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act and Rules, and the significance of seniority in determinin....
Branch-wise seniority for promotions is valid under recruitment rules, and long-standing acceptance of this system by appellants precludes their challenge.
The date of entry into service should determine seniority, and any departure from this principle must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seniority of the petitioners should be counted from the date of their regularization as Assistant Engineers. The court also emphasized the....
(1) Promotion – In absence of rules, recourse to recruitment based on executive orders could be taken.(2) Interpretation of Statute – No word, no phrase and no expression used in a legislation should....
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.