Delayed promotion claims in public service must be timely and properly pleaded to avoid prejudice to third-party rights and established seniority.

JUDGMENT

Mohammed Nias.C.P.J., The applicant who filed O.A. (EKM) 21 of 2013 challenges the order dated 12-03-2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. KAT No. 350 of 2022. OP (KAT) No. 370 of 2022 is filed by the very same applicant against the dismissal of O.A.(EKM) 214 of 2022 and M.A. (EKM) No. 306 of 2022 dated 27-6-2022.

2. The applicant entered service in the Department of Survey and Land Records as a Second Grade Draftsman on 01-09-1975 and states that he had passed the requisite test for promotion as First Grade Draftsman in October, 1982 and further tests like account test, revenue test, District Offices Manual Test and Head Draftsman test were also successfully completed between the years 1984 and 1986. Thus he claims to have been qualified for promotion to the post of First Grade Draftsman in 1982 but the said promotion was delayed and granted only in the year 1986. The applicant submits that an amendment brought to the General Rules by G.O. (P) No. 309/1984 dated 31-08-1984 whereby, according to him, government servants who are aged 50 years while in service were granted exemption from passing tests necessary for further promotion and the said amendment is stated to have been incorporated in the Special Rules for the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service only in the year 1993. He, therefore, claims to be considered for promotion as Draftsmans Grade -I, and also for subsequent promotions as Head Drafts man, Technical Assistant, Assistant Director of Survey and Deputy Director of Survey. The applicant had moved this Court earlier and pursuant to the direction given by this Court, Annexure-A7 order dated 5-6-2002 was passed by the respondents rejecting his claims. He alleges the same to be a non-speaking order and, therefore, sought for a declaration that Annexures A1, A2 and A7 are bad and claims his rightful promotion before his juniors, who according to him are unqualified, were promoted. The Original Application was filed in the year 2013.

3. The first respondent filed a reply stating that the applicant had entered service as Second Grade Draftsman on 1-09-1975 and was included in the seniority list of Second Grade Draftsman as on 1- 11-1978 as Sl. No. 1005 and the said seniority list was published as early as on 15-08-1981 and it was never challenged. Subsequently, the applicant was again included in the seniority list as First Grade Draftsman promoted in between 2-6-1990 and 30-09-1998 and was ranked as Sl. No. 149 in the above list. No candidates junior to the applicant was included as senior to him in the seniority lists. It is also stated that R. 13B was incorporated in the General Rules as per G.O.(P) No. 55/PD dated 2-3-1971 and was never challenged by the applicant. Annexure-A1 produced by the applicant, was only an amendment to the above Rules wherein the necessity for completing 25 years of service was taken away. This amendment was brought into effect from 26-08-1981 by Annexure A2 Special Rules. It is also stated that none of the Juniors of the applicants were promoted overlooking the applicants seniority. Seniors have been promoted earlier to him by virtue of them having passed the tests before and also granting them exemption under Rule 13 B of the KS & SSR. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions found that the Special Rules for the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules was the one issued in the year 1966, the fact that Rule 13B was incorporated into the Subordinate Service Rules only in the year 1993 would not take away the enforceability of Rule 13 B as far as the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service Rules are concerned. The seniority list was never under challenge and it cannot be allowed to be challenged after such a long lapse of time. In the absence of appropriate pleading and impleading the beneficiary of the actions complained as illegal by