Promotions must respect principles of natural justice, including the right to a hearing for affected parties before decisions are made.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner, who joined service under the 5^th respondent’s College as Tradesman (Turner) in the Department of Mechanical Engineering on 01.06.1998, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P15 order issued by the 1^st respondent and to declare that the reversion given to the 4^th respondent from the post of Trade Instructor to the post of Tradesman with effect from 01.10.2009 is in order. The petitioner also seeks to direct the respondents to implement Ext.P13 Government Order, whereby the Government has held that already settled matters need not be reviewed on the basis of Ext.P12 Ordinance.

2. The petitioner states that while working in the College as Tradesman (Turner), he was promoted as Trade Instructor Grade-II with effect from 01.06.2011. Subsequently, he was promoted as Draughtsman /Instructor Grade-II with effect from 03.06.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Instructor Grade-II with effect from 29.08.2013. The petitioner was later promoted as Instructor Grade-I with effect from 03.04.2021.

3. The petitioner would submit that the 4^th respondent was appointed as Tradesman (Foundry) on 04.09.2007. The 4^th respondent, therefore, is about nine years junior to the petitioner. The 4^th respondent was granted an accelerated promotion as Trade Instructor on 01.10.2009. However, the 4^th respondent was later reverted to the post of Tradesman by an order dated 04.12.2013. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent was promoted as Trade Instructor with effect from 01.06.2018. In the cadre of Trade Instructor also the 4^th respondent is about seven years junior to the petitioner.

4. The issue of whether trade-wise promotion or Department-wise promotion is to be followed, was considered by this Court in W.A.No.1150/1994 and connected cases. By a common judgment, this Court directed the Government to examine the entire issue and pass orders fixing the staff pattern in Private Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics as directed by the learned Single Judge.

5. The judgment in W.A.No.1150/1994 was taken up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1897/1998 . The Hon’ble Apex Court passed Ext.P5 order. The Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the order of the Division Bench. However, the Apex Court directed that the State Government shall examine the entire issue and fix the staff pattern of the non-teaching staff in the Private Engineering Colleges within a period of six months from the date of order and clarified that any promotion made after the order of the learned Single Judge shall be subject to final fixation of the staff pattern by the State Government and shall be subject to review on that basis.

6. The petitioner submits that pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P6 order dated 30.11.2000. By Ext.P6 order, the Government of Kerala ordered the staff pattern of non- teaching staff of Private Engineering Colleges be fixed as one Instructor Grade-II, four Trade Instructor and four Tradesman (1:4:4). The petitioner submits that while issuing Ext.P6 order, the Government did not made it clear whether the staff pattern sanctioned as per Ext.P6 is to be implemented trade-wise or department-wise.

7. In the meanwhile, this Court as per the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9209/2011, filed by the petitioner, directed the Government to take a decision on Ext.P7 representation after notice to the parties. Pursuant to the said judgment, Government of Kerala passed Ext.P8 order dated 14.12.2011 clarifying that promotions have to be effected based