The determination of seniority for promotions is based on the date of joining the service, not the transfer date.

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the order at Annexure-N dated 25.06.2012 issued by 2^nd respondent. The petitioner also prays for writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001 as requested under the representation dated 04.02.2012 at Annexure-M. The said representation is based on the addendum order dated 30.01.2012 at Annexure-L.

2. Annexure-N referred to above is called in question on the premise that Smt. Susheelamma D.R., 3^rd respondent in this petition should have been placed at serial No.51-A ahead of petitioner who is placed at serial No.62-A.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though Susheelamma joined service on 14.02.1984, when she was transferred to the Central office vide order dated 19.01.1995, she reported to duty on 13.06.1996. Whereas, the petitioner though joined service on 23.04.1992, when she was transferred to the Central office vide order dated 11.01.1995, she reported to duty on the same day. As such, she would be senior to 3^rd respondent.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent/Corporation would submit that date of joining to a transferred place is not the criteria to determine the seniority. The date of joining the service would be criteria for reckoning the seniority.

5. It is well settled principle of law that when a person employed, his transfer from one division to another, in terms of the rules applicable to the KSRTC employees, the date of joining of service is to be taken into account to determine the seniority and not the date of joining the place of transfer.

6. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any justification to quash Annexure-N.

7. As far as 2^nd prayer of the petitioner to consider her to the promotional post of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2001, there were five vacant posts to be filled in the cadre of junior Stenographer. The petitioner who was the typist at that point of time and the respondent-Corporation was under obligation to fill all the five vacant junior Stenographer posts. Though the petitioner was not at serial No.5 in terms of the seniority, the person at serial No.3 opted out for promotion as he took transfer to some other department and petitioner who was at serial No.6 was eligible to be considered since 5 posts were available in the cadre of junior Stenographer. The respondent-Corporation ought to have taken a decision to promote the petitioner to the post of junior Stenographer with effect from 28.03.2001, is the submission. The decision of the respondent-Corporation that only four persons are promoted is to be interfered with and petitioner's promotion is to be reckoned with effect from 28.03.2001.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent -

Corporation would submit that though 5 posts were available to be filled in the year 2001 in the cadre of junior Stenographer, the Departmental Promotion Committee for administrative reasons has taken a decision only to promote 4 persons and fill 4 out of 5 vacancies. It is her submission that the employee has no right to insist that employer to fill all the posts which are vacant. At the most the employee can make a request to consider the employee for promotion. The law in this regard is also well settled. The employee cannot insist the employer to fill up all the vacancies in the promotional cadre. At the most, there can be request by the employee to consider him for promotion and if such a request is made, the employer is under obligation to consider the request. Since the Departmental Pr