AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, admittedly, joined as Lower Division Typist in the Economics and Statistic Department. It is not in dispute that at the time of joining service, there were two cadres, one ministerial cadre and the other technical cadre in the department. It is also not in dispute that the present petitioner chose to be in the technical cadre. Admittedly, she was in the ministerial cadre, when she was promoted as U.D. Typist. As per the Special Rules, to the post of Research Assistant, U.D Typists from Ministerial Cadre were one of the feeder cadres and the same was removed by Exhibit P7 Special Rules called ''Kerala Statistics and Economics Subordinate Service Special Rules of 2009'' in supersession of earlier Rules, Exhibit P3. The grievance of the petitioner and similarly situated persons came to be considered by the Government, when they gave representations and the Government made an order as per Exhibit P12. Aggrieved by the last two lines in Exhibit P12, a Writ Petition came to be filed and later the matter was transferred to Kerala Administrative Tribunal. According to the petitioner, other feeder categories like U.D Compilers/Investigators etc. have put in more number of years of service in the respective posts. Therefore, if the total service seniority becomes the criterion for promotion to Research Assistant, neither the petitioner nor any U.D. Typist would be able to compete with the other feeder category. Therefore, virtually Exhibit P12, though given as a concession to the petitioner and others, was taken away by introducing the last sentence, i.e., computation of total service seniority.
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, after taking into consideration Exhibit P12 and also other facts, especially, the amendment, which came into existence in 2009, was of the opinion that applicant''s service will never be affected and Exhibit P12 is only a favour shown to the applicant. With these observations, Tribunal disposed of the matter.
According to the petitioner''s counsel, only on the representation of the petitioner and the like persons, Exhibit P12 was issued by the Government intending to give them some benefit, but practically the so-called benefit extended by the Government will practically be never extended to the petitioner on account of less number of years of service than other feeder category.
From the submissions of learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. P.I. Davis, we note that to become U.D Typist, it would take about 2-3 years from the cadre of L.D Typist, but, so far as U.D. Compilers and Investigators etc, to get next promotion, it has taken more than 15-16 years. Therefore, if length of service is not the criterion, the Compilers and others, who had put in long number of years of service would never be entitled for any promotion. Therefore, in order to remove difficulty and to do justice equally to all the feeder categories, the length of service was introduced only as a benefit to the petitioner and others on their representations, though it was never intended as per the amended Rules.
Admittedly, till Special Rules came to be granted in 2009, no Research Assistant post became vacant. Therefore, question of petitioner or any other person like her getting any benefit of promotion was not there. Whether a particular category has to be in the feeder cadre or not has to be decided depending upon various aspects of the matter. In the present case, after taking into consideration several aspects, especially no chance of promotion for U.D Compilers and Investigators etc., U.D. Typists were removed from the feeder cadre. Only on the representations of the petitioner and others, concession came to be made as per Exhibit P12. If any U.D. Typist also has good number of years of service like Compilers and others, they could also be considered as other feeder category. Therefore, we are of the opinion, Exhibit P12 issued by the Government was made in the right direction to do justice to all the feeder category, including the petitioner and others. If a solitary case of one U.D. Typist with less number of years of service like present one, is a situation where she will not be able to compete with others. So far as the length of service or seniority is concerned, we cannot term the Rules or Exhibit P12 as mala fide or arbitrary.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, nothing remains for consideration in the matter. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed.