Passing departmental tests is essential for declaration of probation and promotion in university service as per established rules, which ensure seniority is respected in line with qualifications.

Headnote:(A) Kerala University Act, 1974; Kerala University First Statutes, 1977; Kerala Service and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 - Promotion criteria - Petitioners challenged their non-promotion compared to junior colleagues - Ruling that passing departmental tests remains necessary for probation declaration and promotions - University must act upon recommendations regarding seniority and promotions based on passing of tests. (Paras 6, 9, 10, 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, having completed requisite service and tests, claimed violation of promotional norms based on seniority versus junior colleagues promoted improperly under the University’s guidelines. Petitioners filed several writ petitions seeking equitable promotions in line with their qualifications and seniority.

Findings of Court:
The University was directed to rectify promotions based on hierarchies established through test results and to ensure future compliance with test requirements as outlined by law.

Issues: Determination of whether passing departmental tests is a mandatory criterion for promotion and how seniority must be managed among assistants at the university.

Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the requirement to pass departmental tests as stated in university statutes must guide promotion and probation declarations, rejecting the contrary position taken by some respondents based on previous practices.

Result: Appeals allowed; University directed to revise promotional decisions based on departmental test eligibility.

JUDGMENT

C.S.Sudha, J.

Is there any criteria to be satisfied/fulfilled by the 'Assistants' of the Kerala University for declaration of probation and for promotion to higher grades/posts ? Is there any mandatory test to be passed or qualified by them for declaration of their probation and for being promoted to higher grades/posts ? The appellants led by learned Senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam and instructed by Adv.Navaneeth Krishnan A.L. answers the queries emphatically in the affirmative, whereas the party respondents, led by learned Senior Counsel Sri.Jaiju Babu and instructed by Adv.V.Madhusudhanan, with equal if not more vigour, in the negative. Let us examine the controversy involved.

2. These intra court appeals have been filed by the petitioners and the first respondent, University of Kerala, aggrieved by the common judgment dated 08/09/2020 disposing of W.P.(C)Nos.1366/2018 ; 5731/2018 ; 8866/2018 ; 9290/2018 ; 6297/2019 ; 4267/2020 and 4755/2019. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27317/2023 support the case of the appellants in the writ appeals. The facts and the dispute/issue involved in all the appeals are the same and hence they are being disposed of together. The facts ; the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in W.P. (C)No.1366/2018 unless otherwise referred to.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P1, P2 and P8 orders of the first respondent University of Kerala (the University). According to the petitioners, they were appointed as Assistants in the University pursuant to a due process of selection and on the basis of a rank list published on 14/04/2008. They were granted promotions as Senior Grade Assistants and thereafter as Selection Grade Assistants on various dates as per Ext.P1 order dated 23/02/2017. Respondents 4 to 36 (the party respondents) were promoted as Section Officers by Ext.P1 order as well as by Ext.P2 order dated 16/08/2017. Ext.P1 order was issued based on the judgment dated 21/02/2017 in W.P.(C)No.491/2012 and connected cases. The petitioners passed the departmental test in January 2009 and completed their probation in the post of Assistants in May/June 2009. They were thus eligible to be promoted as Senior Grade Assistants in June 2009. Ext.P3 is the list of Assistants eligible for promotion as Senior Grade Assistants in June 2009. All the petitioners figured in Ext.P3 list. The party respondents had passed the departmental test only in July 2009 and thereafter. Ext.P4 is the list of Assistants who have passed the departmental test after June 2009. Though the party respondents had passed the department test only after the petitioners had passed the departmental test, the former have already been promoted as Section Officers. The order of promotion issued by the University is in violation of the principles of seniority. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 27/02/2017 before the Vice Chancellor, that is, the second respondent, who in turn constituted a Committee for rectifying the anomalies.

3.1. The Committee on 17/05/2017 submitted Ext.P5 report recommending the Assistants of the 2008 batch to be promoted to the cadre of Senior Grade with effect from 03/12/2009 and to Selection Grade with effect from 01/04/2011. The second respondent called for objections to Ext.P5 report, to which various objections were filed. The Committee on 28/06/2017 submitted a draft proposal to the second respondent. The second respondent after considering the fresh recommendations of the Committee, directed the latter to submit a comprehensive report after verifying the available records and after considering all the aspects involved in the matter. Pursuant thereto, the Committee submitted Ext.P6 report dated 10/08/2017. The Committee found that promotions granted to the party respondents ignoring the seniority of the petitioners was wrong and placed them in the list according to the date of passing the departmental test. Though the finding of the Anomaly Rectifica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 63316

Passing departmental tests is essential for declaration of probation and promotion in university service as per established rules, which ensure seniority is respected in line with qualifications.

Cases Referred (5)