Delays in asserting promotion claims can bar relief due to potential disruption of established seniority.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)

No.31604 of 2018, challenging the judgment dated 27.01.2025, dismissing her writ petition.

2. The appellant/writ petitioner joined the service of the Kerala High Court as Assistant Grade-II on 24.06.1992. Her probation was declared on 24.06.1994 and thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Grade I with effect from 06.11.1998, as per Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, after declaration of probation in that category, she was again promoted as Section Officer/Court Officer/Court Fee Examiner on 31.03.2011, as per Ext.P4 order. Thereafter, she was given regular grade promotion as Section Officer(HG)/Court Officer(HG) with effect from 21.05.2013 and she is now presently working as Filing Scrutiny Officer. The appellant belongs to the Schedule Caste community and as per the High Court Service Rules, 1970, as well as the amended Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short), persons belonging to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe are exempted from passing test qualification for promotion to a higher grade. On the date of occurrence of vacancy, a person belonging to SC/ST ought to be promoted to the next arising vacancy and granted exemption from test qualification for a period of three years. After declaration of the appellant's probation in the post of Assistant Grade II on 24.06.1994, she was eligible for being promoted to the post of Assistant Grade I, on arising of a vacancy, by granting exemption from passing the departmental test. But the appellant was promoted only on 06.11.1998, after she passed the Departmental Test in June 1998. Therefore, the appellant approached the first respondent by way of a representation dated 24.03.2017 seeking re-fixation of seniority in accordance with the service rules. But that representation was rejected as per Ext.P6 dated 02.08.2017. Thereafter, the appellant filed Ext.P7 statutory appeal before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Kerala, and the same also ended in dismissal as per Ext.P8 order. The appellant ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I on 19.01.1994, the date on which her junior was promoted, by granting the exemption prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules, and the promotion was denied due to a procedural lapse on the part of the first respondent. Hence, the appellant filed afore writ petition praying that Exts.P6 and P8 orders may be quashed and that a declaration may be granted to the effect that the appellant is entitled for promotion as on 19.01.1994, by refixing the seniority.

3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard Adv.Martin Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.K.R.Ganesh, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that Rule 10 of the Kerala High Court Service Rules , 2007 and Rule 13A(1)(a) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 are not merely enabling provisions, but are constitutional tools intended to uplift members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes through adequate representation and timely advancement in service. He argued that Rule 10 does not confer any discretion on the Chief Justice in granting the exemption, and the Rule is mandatory in nature. He further contended that, if the appellant had been given a timely promotion, she would have qualified the Departmental Test within the prescribed period itself. He also argued that the delay in filing the representation cannot be used against the appellant, since she was never informed about her entitlement under the relevant Rules.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for t