Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 611 (KER)

Devadasan v. K. S. E. B.

2000-11-21

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2000
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the service of the Kerala State Electricity Board on 8.3.1994. Admittedly probation is prescribed for the post. That is for a period of one year within a continuous period of duty of two years. That continuous period of duty expired on 8.3.1996. It is the admitted case before me that the petitioner did not complete probation in the category of Assistant Engineer within that period; because he was on leave without allowance for employment abroad as sanctioned in Ext. P2. He came back on 29.2.2000 and joined duty, as Assistant Engineer. Later, petitioner's juniors in the category of Assistant Engineer who had been so promoted after 8.3.94, were again promoted further as Assistant Engineer after 29.2.2000, when the petitioner was only a probationer in the category of Assistant Engineer. Petitioner submits that inspite of the non-completion of the period of probation so far as he is concerned, he shall be promoted in preference to such juniors who were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers after 29.2.2000. Petitioner places reliance upon the first proviso to R.28(a) of the General Rules in the KS & SS Rules to substantiate the claim for such promotion. The said proviso reads as follows: "Provided that a probationer in a class, category or grade shall not be superseded for promotion to a higher class, category or grade by his junior, if the vacancy in the higher class, category or grade arises within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation in the class, category or grade n which he is probationer .(emphasis supplied) In order to avail of this benefit, the vacancy in the higher category shall occur "within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation in the class, category or grade" of Assistant Engineer. The period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation is admittedly a continuous period of two years. In the case of the petitioner it is from 8.3.94, when he was so promoted. The period expired on 8.3.96. If a promotion chance occurred only within that period, then alone the petitioner can aspire for application of the proviso to seek promotion notwithstanding non-completion of the period of probation. Petitioner should have completed the probation within a continuous period of two years from 8.3.1994. The period expired on 8.3.96. If a promotion chance occurred only within that period, then alone the petitioner can aspire for application of the proviso to seek promotion notwithstanding non-completion of the period of probation. Petitioner should have completed the probation within a continuous period of two years from 8.3.1994. If any of his juniors had completed it earlier than him, and if that junior was being promoted, necessarily, the petitioner would have preference for promotion to him, notwithstanding his non-completion of probation in terms of the said proviso. Here, admittedly, the vacancies in the higher category of Assistant Executive Engineer to which his juniors had been promoted had arisen after 29.2.2000, ie., beyond the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation. So far as the petitioner is concerned, that period ended on 8.3.96, as he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 8.3.94. But he could not complete his probation within that period. He cannot blame others for it. Those are not the vacancies occurred, as provided for in the said proviso, "within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation". To get the benefit, the vacancy ought to have occurred within the period of probation provided for in the Special Rules, and not within the period actually taken by one to complete the probation. O.P. therefore fails. Dismissed.