Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 163 (KER)

K. P. Gopalakrishnan v. The State Of Kerala

1986-05-30

V.BHASKARAN NAMBIAR, V.S.MALIMATH

body1986
JUDGMENT Malimath, C.J. 1. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are allottees on the reorganisation from the former State of Madras. They were holding the posts of Copy Holders in the Madras Printing Press immediately prior to the re-organisation of the State. The 3rd respondent joined service as Copy Holder on 20th November 1945 whereas the petitioner joined service as a Copy Holder with effect from 17th July 1956. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent came to be promoted as Reader Grade.2 on different dates. Whereas the petitioner acquired the qualification of Proof Reading Higher in the year 1961, the 3rd respondent acquired the same qualification only in the year 1965. The petitioner appears to have got into the cadre of Reader Grade.2 earlier on the basis that on the date on which the vacancies of Reader Grade.2 occurred, he had qualified himself for promotion by passing Proof Reading Higher, whereas the 3rd respondent, though senior in the cadre of Copy Holders was not qualified on that date and got that qualification only four years later. When gradation lists were prepared as per Exts. P-4 and P-5, the 3rd respondent and other aggrieved persons filed complaints challenging the correctness of those gradation lists. It is with a view to review the promotions and eliminate mistakes in the matter of promotions and granting deemed dates of promotion that the State Government appointed a Special Officer to examine all aspects of the matter and to prepare a revised gradation list. The Special Officer examined all aspects of the matter and a provisional gradation list was prepared. The same was circulated and objections of all aggrieved persons including the petitioner were considered, and a final gradation list as per Ext.P8 came to be published in the Kerala Gazette dated 3rd November, 1981. In that gradation list pertaining to the reading section the name of the 3rd respondent is included as Serial No. 1 in the cadre of Head Readers in the scale of Rs. 405-660 assigning him 24th October 1970 as the deemed date of promotion, to that cadre. Immediately below the cadre of Head Reader is included the lower cadre of Senior Reader in the scale of Rs.330-575. The name of the petitioner is included in that cadre as Serial No. 5 assigning 1st July 1975 as the deemed date of promotion to the cadre of Senior Readers. Immediately below the cadre of Head Reader is included the lower cadre of Senior Reader in the scale of Rs.330-575. The name of the petitioner is included in that cadre as Serial No. 5 assigning 1st July 1975 as the deemed date of promotion to the cadre of Senior Readers. Thus it is clear that Ext.P8 places the 3rd respondent in a higher category than the petitioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by the ranking assigned in the gradation list Ext.P8, appears to have filed a representation before the State Government. As he could not obtain any relief from the State on that representation, the petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P8. He prays for quashing Ext.P8 and for restoring the gradation lists Exts.P4 and P5. 2. The principal contention of Sri Chandrasekharan learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner having acquired the qualification of Proof Reading Higher earlier than the 3rd respondent, he was accorded promotion to the cadre of Reader Grade.2 and regularised in that position in the year 1961. The 3rd respondent could not secure that position in the year 1961 as he was not qualified on that date, he having acquired the said qualification only in the year 1965. In the gradation lists Exts.P4 and P5 this position which the petitioner acquired, of earlier promotions to Reader Grade.2, stands truly reflected. It was submitted by Sri Chandrasekharan that there was no reason to upset this position and to prepare a fresh gradation list as per Ext.P8. The answer given however was that what was done as per Exts.P4 and P5 was not right. It is asserted by the State that the promotion given to the petitioner to the cadre of Reader Grade.2 was wrong. It was pointed out that in the Malabar area which came from the State of Madras consequent upon the re-organisation of the State what held the field was the Madras Rules in regard to prescription of qualifications and regulating promotions in the Printing Press. Under those rules there is no post of Reader Grade.2. Certain qualifications were, however, prescribed by the State Government for different posts vide the order made in the year 1957. Under those rules there is no post of Reader Grade.2. Certain qualifications were, however, prescribed by the State Government for different posts vide the order made in the year 1957. It is explained by the state that that order was to be understood as enabling the authorities to make promotions of those who have qualifications in accordance with the said order irrespective of the question as to whether the Government Servant belongs to the Madras area or the Travancore-Cochin area. It is now explained that the order of 1957 prescribing qualifications etc., was for the purpose of filling up of new posts after the said Order came into force, in the new State of Kerala and that personnel who came to be allotted to the new State of Kerala on the re-organisation of the State stood really governed by the respective rules which prevailed in the respective areas. It is on that basis it is submitted that so far as the areas that came from the Madras State known as Malabar area is concerned, it is the Madras Rules that govern the field and therefore personnel who stood allotted from Madras were required to be considered for promotion applying the Madras Rules and the allottees of Travancore-Cochin area were required to be considered for promotion applying the rules prevailing in the Travancore-Cochin area. Unfortunately it was not done that way as the 1957 order was wrongly understood and made applicable to the allottees from the Madras State. This mistake is sought to be set right for which purpose it is the Madras rules that have been made applicable. It is not disputed that uniform rules came to be formulated for the entire State only with effect from 22nd September 1976. Until the new rules came to be promulgated, the allottees of Madras were required to be considered for promotion applying the rules in force in the Madras area. As already pointed out, in Madras Printing Press there was no post of Reader Grade.2. Hence, though the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Reader Grade.2, that was on a mistaken understanding of the correct position of law. The next promotional post for Copy Holders in Madras State was the post of Junior Reader and the next promotional post is that of Senior Reader. Above that is the post of Top Senior Reader. Hence, though the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Reader Grade.2, that was on a mistaken understanding of the correct position of law. The next promotional post for Copy Holders in Madras State was the post of Junior Reader and the next promotional post is that of Senior Reader. Above that is the post of Top Senior Reader. For promotion to the post of Junior Reader the qualification prescribed by the Madras Rules was Proof Reading Lower. For the post of Senior Reader and other higher posts the qualification prescribed was a pass in Proof Reading Higher. So far as the 3rd respondent is concerned he had passed Proof Reading Lower in the year 1953 much before the petitioner joined service as a. Copy Holder. It becomes therefore clear that the petitioner cannot assert any right on the basis of the actual promotion accorded to him as Reader Grade.2 as that was done on a misunderstanding of the correct position of law. That was done without applying the Madras Rules. What is done in Ext.P8 is to apply the Madras Rules and determine the position considering the claims of all eligible persons in accordance with their respective seniority. It is clear from Ext.P8 that the post of Head Reader fell vacant on 24th October, 1970. On that date the 3rd respondent was duly qualified as he had acquired the qualification of Proof Reading Higher. Though the petitioner had also acquired the same qualification, as the third respondent was admittedly senior to the petitioner, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Head Reader in preference to the petitioner. According to the Madras Rules, if a person is qualified for promotion, he can be considered for promotion to the higher cadre and he would not necessarily be required to be promoted to the different intermediary posts. That is why when the post of Head Reader became available on 24th October 1970, it was not necessary for the Government to promote the 3rd respondent first as Senior Reader and then to promote him to the cadre of Head Reader. In the Original Petition filed by the petitioner, it is not his case that no vacancies of Head Reader occurred on 24th October, 1970 of that any such vacancy occurred on any earlier date. In the Original Petition filed by the petitioner, it is not his case that no vacancies of Head Reader occurred on 24th October, 1970 of that any such vacancy occurred on any earlier date. It is also not his case that the vacancies of Senior Reader to which post the petitioner could compete, occurred on any date earlier than the date assigned to him viz. 1st July 1975. We have therefore no hesitation in taking the view that what has been done by Ext. P-8 is to correct a mistake that was committed by wrongly understanding the effect of 1957 order of the State Government prescribing qualifications etc. The State Government having set right the mistake and filled up the vacancies which occurred prior to 22nd September, 1976 applying the Madras Rules in respect of allottees from the Madras area, the list Ext.P8 cannot be found fault with. It is necessary to point out that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, both being allottees from the State of Madras, were required to be considered applying the Madras Rules until 22nd September 1976. The gradation list Ext.P8 determines the relative position prior to 22nd September 1976. It is obvious that promotions on and after 22nd September, 1976 have to be effected in accordance with the uniform rules that have come into force on that date. We cannot therefore find fault with Ext.P8 gradation list. For the reasons stated above this Original Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.