Executive cannot override the judiciary's authority in service matters; re-designations approved by the judiciary should be respected by the executive.

JUDGMENT

The constitutional propriety in issuing Ext.P4 reply by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala declining to approve the proposal for re-designation of the posts of Court Keeper and Court Keeper (Higher Grade) under the Kerala High Court service, as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant respectively, is the issue arising for consideration in the writ petition.

2. Writ petitioners are members of the Kerala High Court Service, working as Court Keepers (Higher Grade) and Court Keepers. The duties and responsibilities of Court Keepers are similar to that Amenities Assistants in the Legislature Department, contend the petitioners. The petitioners therefore submitted Ext.P2 representation dated 31.03.2021 to the High Court of Kerala requesting to re- designate the posts of Court Keeper as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and the Court Keeper (Higher Grade) as Senior Court Amenities Assistant.

3. The request was placed before the Grievance Committee constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The Grievance Committee of the High Court was of the opinion that the posts should be re-designated. The said recommendation was accepted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The matter was forwarded to the 1^st respondent-State of Kerala for approval. The 1^st respondent, by Ext.P4 communication dated 25.09.2024, has rejected the approval for re-designation of the posts.

4. The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 communication alleging that it is arbitrary, illegal and vitiated by non- application of mind. The petitioners urge that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court, exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India , has re-designated the post of Court Keeper and Court Keeper (HG) as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant respectively. Ext.P4 has been issued in violation of the principles laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter. Ext.P4 is therefore liable to be quashed and the petitioners are entitled for declaration that the posts are liable to be re-designated.

5. The 1^st respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 1^st respondent stated that re- designation of the post of cadre cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is a policy decision to be taken on the administrative level. The Registrar General of the High Court required for sanction of re-designation on the ground that the duties and responsibilities are similar to that of Amenities Assistants in the Legislature Department. The said reason is incorrect.

6. Amenities Assistants in MLA Hostel in Legislature Secretariat discharge far more and wider responsibilities. The duties of both the categories cannot be compared. The qualification prescribed for the posts of Court Keeper and Amenities Assistants are more or less the same but the duties and responsibilities assigned are different. The re- designation does not seem to involve administrative necessity or functional requirement. The proposed re- designation will result in additional financial burden on the State Exchequer. Hence, the proposal is declined. The writ petition is devoid of any merit, contended the learned Advocate General representing the 1^st respondent.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate General representing the State of Kerala and the learned Standing Counsel representing the High Court of Kerala.

8. The petitioners, who are working as Court Keeper (Higher Grade) and Court Keeper, seek re-designation as Junior Court Amenities Assistant and Senior Court Amenities Assistant. Their requests were considere