Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 166 (KER)

MURALEEDHARAN C. v. STATE OF KERALA

2025-02-03

P.M.MANOJ

body2025
JUDGMENT : The petitioners herein are post graduates and also have qualifications of B.Ed and SET. The grievance voiced in the writ petition is the anomaly in the special rules finalized as per Ext.P9 and rejection of their representation to anomaly committee by Ext.P15. That is impugned in this writ petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the 1 st petitioner is a post graduate in English Language and Literature with SET and B.Ed qualifications. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner is having a double post-graduation in English as well as in history with B.Ed and SET. They were directly recruited to the post of Junior Office Assistant in the Ministerial Wing under the 2 nd respondent on 25.10.2006 and 03.04.2001, respectively. Later, they were promoted to the post of Office Assistants. At the time of filing of the writ petition, they were functioning as Senior Office Assistants. 3. According to them, they are aggrieved by the amendment made to the special rules governing the service conditions of Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) employees. Whereby, they are totally excluded from the purview of effecting promotion to the post of teachers. It is further stated that, IHRD is having Engineering Colleges and Technical Higher Secondary Schools and also offer various courses and subjects in addition to the technical subjects including science, humanities and language. In the post of Lecturers/Science/Humanities (Technical Higher Secondary School) there was a reservation of 20% for the sanctioned posts for qualified IHRD hands working in non- technical posts and the feeder category prescribed to the post is Junior System Analyst, in the absence of which Computer Programmer. There were no promotional avenues for the persons working in the ministerial wing to become teachers in the subject of arts and languages. 4. While they were working , an amendment was proposed for the special rules as per Ext.P8, wherein, a specific avenue was provided for the qualified persons under the ministerial staff, i.e.,in the absence of qualified Junior System Analyst/Foreman with stipulated experience then, Computer Programmer/ Demonstrator, in the absence of that, librarian/office staff with eight years of experience under IHRD were eligible for direct recruitment to the post of lecturers in arts/science/humanities/literature /history. However, while finalizing the special rules, the feeder category provided for ministerial staff in the draft special rules was completely ignored or wiped out. However, while finalizing the special rules, the feeder category provided for ministerial staff in the draft special rules was completely ignored or wiped out. Thereby, they lost an avenue to get promotion to the post of lecturers. For the expeditious disposal of the representation, the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P14 judgment. 5. Under such circumstances, the representation preferred before the anomaly committee was rejected by Ext.P15. Whereby, it was found that, there is no anomaly as per the existing rules. The committee also observed that, the clerical staff have more promotional avenues in the hierarchy of ministerial cadre. However, the special rules, now in force was the one approved by the Government after a detailed study of the erstwhile special rules and after examining anomalies or omissions, if any, in the draft of the revised rules. It may not be in the interest of organization to amend the special rules to cater to the needs of one or two incumbents just because they attained additional qualification while in service. 6. It is also specified that, the case of the petitioners is that, they will get an opportunity to apply for the post of lecturer in arts and science in Technical Higher Secondary Schools when applications are invited for the post under direct recruitment. 7. In response to the contentions in the writ petition, a statement has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3. Wherein, the status of the petitioners was admitted and stated that, now they are working as Senior Office Assistants after getting two promotions from the post of Junior Assistant and Office Assistant at Model Polytechnic College, Mattakkara. While they were in service, the Government have constituted a committee for rectifying the anomalies in the existing staff pattern and special rules. The committee submitted its report after detailed study and the report submitted by the sub committee was approved by the Government and revised special rules for IHRD was issued on 20.08.2014. As per the revised special rules, 20% was the sanctioned post of lecturer in arts/science/humanities/ literature/ history in Technical Higher Secondary School reserved for selection from among the qualified IHRD employees. The feeder categories as depicted in the revised special rules are, 1). Junior system analyst/foreman with three years experience under IHRD 2). In the absence of the one above, the computer programmer/demonstrator with four years experience under IHRD. 8. The feeder categories as depicted in the revised special rules are, 1). Junior system analyst/foreman with three years experience under IHRD 2). In the absence of the one above, the computer programmer/demonstrator with four years experience under IHRD. 8. On going by the statement so filed it is apparent that three categories prescribed in the special rules is completely neglected, i.e., in the absence of 1 and 2, above, the librarian/ministerial staff were provided with an opportunity to be recruited to the post of lecturers. In the statement preferred by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondent, it is also afÏrmed that, there is no anomaly in the special rules. 9. In reply to the said statement, the learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the writ petition. Whereby, it is stated that, in Ext.P8, the avenue opened for the petitioners to the post of lecturers in arts/ science/ humanities/ literature/ history (Technical Higher Secondary Schools) was taken away. Such decision taken by the respondents appears to be arbitrary and illegal. This is the background in which the petitioner is challenging Ext.P15 order. 10. By Ext.P5 order, the request of the petitioner to the anomaly committee to clear the anomaly has been rejected. However, the petitioners further submitted that, by Ext.P18, a sub committee was constituted for revising the staff pattern as per the special rules of IHRD. Accordingly, the sub committee submitted its report on the revision of staff pattern, considering the implementation of National Educational Policy and revised circular in various streams of institutions under IHRD. The present committee intends to submit its report on the revision of Special Rules by considering the anomalies, if any, in the current Rules. As such, the committee invited suggestions and complaints on the Special Rules from all regular employees of IHRD and the report made according to that will be forwarded to the IHRD. Thereby, an opportunity was given to the employees. Accordingly, the 1 st petitioner had preferred Ext.P19 representation and the 2 nd petitioner also preferred similar representation before the Chairman, Committee for amending Special Rules of IHRD and sought a limited prayer to consider their representation with respect to the so pointed anomalies in the Special Rules which are approved as per Ext.P9. 11. I have heard Sri.P.C Sasidharan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 11. I have heard Sri.P.C Sasidharan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 12. The issue involved in this case is with respect to the promotional avenues provided to the non-technical staff under IHRD institutions. It is the fact that, at the time of joining the institution, there were no promotional avenues for the non-technical staff to the lecture post. Later, by Ext.P8 amendment alone, a new provision was brought in for providing avenue to the non-technical staff like librarians and office assistants to the post of lecturers in the absence of the technical staff as provided in the draft Special Rules. However, when it was finalized, the provision providing a promotional avenue for the non-technical staff was not included in the final order. 13. Under such circumstances, the petitioners had approached the IHRD by preferring their respective representations and approached this Court for an expeditious disposal. That was considered, and IHRD was directed to pass appropriate orders on their representation. Accordingly, Ext.P15 was passed wherein, it was found that, there was no anomaly as alleged by the petitioners. On such background, the writ petition is preferred challenging the same. However, another committee was constituted later as per Ext.P18 for submitting the report on the revision of Special Rules by considering the anomalies, if any, in the current Rules. 14. Accordingly, an opportunity has been offered to the employees for submitting their grievance with respect to the alleged anomalies. The petitioners have submitted representations like Ext.P9. Now they are seeking an expeditious disposal of the same in the background that, in all other schemes of the Education Department, the non technical staff are provided with an opportunity for promotion to teaching posts. This was indiscriminately denied to the petitioners. 15. Under such circumstances, there will be a direction to the appropriate authority to pass orders on Ext.P19 and similar representations preferred by both the petitioners within a period of two months. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.