The court upheld that an employee’s promotion must comply with established service rules and prior experience in lower categories.

JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P12 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get 2^nd Higher Grade with effect from 07.04.2024 in the post of Secretary. There is also a prior to quash Ext.P16. The petitioner was appointed as an Attender as per Ext.P1 order under the 3^rd respondent Society, at a time when the 3^rd respondent Society was classified as a Class III Society. As per Ext.P2, the 3^rd respondent Society was classified as Class I Society and a post of Secretary was sanctioned by the Joint Registrar (General), Ernakulam. Since the petitioner was qualified to hold the post, he was appointed as Secretary with effect from 07.04.2008. The appointment was not approved by the Joint Register on the ground that the appointment was not in accordance with the Feeder Category Sub Rule. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a notice for recovery of the excess pay he had drawn on the basis of the wrong promotion. W.P.(C) No.3685 of 2015 filed by the petitioner was allowed. The impugned order was set aside and it was declared that the promotion of the petitioner as Secretary in the 3^rd respondent Society with effect from 07.04.2008 was in conformity with Rule 188 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969 and that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits. Petitioner was granted the first Time Bound Higher Grade with effect from 07.04.2016 on completion of 8 years of service as Secretary. By Ext.P10, the 3^rd respondent decided to grant 2^nd Higher Grade to the petitioner with effect from 07.04.2024 on completion of 16 years of service in the post of Secretary and the said decision along with the relevant documents were sent to the 2^nd respondent for approval. After some legal proceedings, the 2^nd respondent finally issued Ext.P12 order rejecting the proposal of the 3^rd respondent to grant 2^nd higher grade to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P12 stating that it is in violation of Ext.P13 Government Order.

2. On 11.11.2024, this Court passed an interim order directing the 2^nd respondent to revisit Ext.P12 and pass fresh orders. Thereafter, fresh orders were issued as per Ext.P16, confirming the earlier order. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to two higher grades based on Ext.P13. Ext.P13 is the Government Order dated 15.02.2021, which says that employees belonging to sub staff category can be granted maximum 4 higher grades i.e. 1^st higher grade after completion of 8 years of service, 2^nd higher grade after completion of 16 years of service, 3^rd higher grade after completion of 23 years of service and 4^th higher grade after completion of 28 years of service and for other employees, maximum two time bound higher grades can be granted, 1^st higher grade after completion of 8 years of service and 2^nd higher grade after completion of 16 years of service. The reasoning in Ext.P16 is that the petitioner joined service as Attender and got a direct promotion to the post of Secretary and thereafter he has been given one higher grade and as such he is not entitled to the 2^nd higher grade.

3. The 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit.

Along with the counter affidavit, the 2^nd respondent has produced Ext.R2(b) Circular dated 16.11.2015. The Circular specifically says that such a 2^nd higher grade is not available. Ext.R2(c) is the Circular No. 27/2021 dated 02.04.2011, Clause 22 of which says that on completion of 16 years of service in the entry cadre or on completion of 8 years after earning a promotion in the sub staff category, the 2^nd higher grade can be granted. A 3^rd higher grade is contemplated only in the entry cadre on completion of 23 years. The counter affidavit further says that the petitioner got promoted from sub staff to the higher po