Roby Varghese V.V vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias.C.P..J

This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of his original application, that questioned the assignment of his seniority, whereby, he, a direct recruit was placed below the contesting respondents 5 to 8, who were the promotees.

The short facts leading to the above original petition are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as a Station Officer Trainee on 18.05.2007. He had undergone six months training course in National Fire Service College, Nagpur and thereafter completed the stipended training under the Assistant Divisional Officer only on 28.6.2008. On successful completion of training, the petitioner was absorbed into regular service by giving him appointment as Station Officer in the Fire and Rescue Service Department with effect from 28.6.2008. Ext.R2(a) is the copy of the service order dated 25.7.2008, which specifically stated that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years on duty within a continuous period of three years service from the date on which he joins duty as Station Officer. It was the stand of the Government including the statutory authorities, while rejecting the claim of seniority over the promotees, that the regular service of the petitioner in the category of Station Officer starts only from 28.6.2006, the date on which he joined the duty in the category of Station Officer after the successful completion of training under fully trained Assistant Divisional Officer/Station Office. The petitioner's contention before the Tribunal was that party respondents 5 to 9, the promotees were ranked above him in Annexure A4 provisional seniority list, which is in violation of the special rules as the party respondents were promoted to the post of Station Officer on various dates from December 2007 to June 2008, which according to the petitioner is after his advice and appointment. His objections to the provisional seniority list was not considered favourably. The same was the fate of review application as well as the representations submitted before the Government.

The petitioner had approached the Tribunal by fling OA No.2392 of 2017 to get his representation filed before the Government disposed. The Government passed Annexure-A23 order in obedience to the directions. It cannot be disputed that the applicant completed his training only on 27.6.2008, whereas all the party respondents were promoted as the Station Officer before that date. The petitioner also contended that the period of training was directed to be treated as duty for all service benefits by Annexure A14 order dated 19.6.2012. The Tribunal was of the view that since the petitioner's initial appointment was only as Station Officer Trainee and was eligible for regular appointment only on successful completion of the training namely on 27.6.2008 and as the party respondents were all appointed prior to 27.06.2008, the stand of the Government cannot be faulted and in that view of the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the original application filed by the applicant.

Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Jayakrishnan.D, argues that the order of the Tribunal is wrong in as much as the Tribunal did not consider the crucial fact vide Annexure A14, the Government itself had directed the training period to be considered as duty. It is his further submission that Annexure A4 special rules also speaks of completion of training and therefore the date of the completion of training must be taken into account and not the date of issuance of the certificate acknowleding the completion of training. He also contends that since the training was completed on 31.06.2007, the party respondents who are promoted after that cannot claim seniority over the petitioner. He also relies on the Government Gazette dated 26.11.2014.

We have heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that the petitioner's date of regular appointment can only be taken as 27.06.2008 and the party respondents, all of whom were promoted prior to that must be treated as senior to the petitioner. The Government had considered all the contentions of the petitioner while passing Annexure 23, the impugned order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions had passed the impugned judgment and no interference is warranted.

After hearing the learned counsel on either side and perusing the records, we are unable to accede to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the date of regular appointment of the petitioner. Ext.R1(a), the service order appointing the petitioner as Station Officer Trainee itself shows that his appointment as a Station Officer would come into effect only after the successful stipended training, the date on which the petitioner completed the training as mandated in the rules. His contention for taking any anterior date cannot be accepted. The Tribunal had rightly considered the rival contentions and held that the petitioner has completed training only on 27.06.2008. The reasoning of the Tribunal, in our view is correct. Reliance placed on Annexure A14 also cannot be accepted as it did not have any retrospective effect. That apart, Annexure A4 itself stated as follows:-

“Their joining duty after the successful completion of training and examination, and also the period of extension of training if any shall also be treated as officiating service for the purpose of increment, pension and probation.

Suitable amendments will be made in the Special Rules read as first paper in due course.”

Amendments were introduced later by the Kerala Fire Subordinate Services (Amendment) 2014, the relevant provision of which reads thus:-

“The training period, including final examination for all categories in the entry cadre shall be treated as duty with effect from 1st day of June 2011”

The above only directs the inclusion of training period as duty and does not deal with the inter se seniority between the direct recruits and the promotees or deal with the issue on hand. At any rate, these rules were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and no grounds are taken in this original petition as well. The above rules also implies that the joining on regular appointment can only be after a successful completion of training and examination. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal.

The original petition fails and the same is dismissed.