T.K. Darwin vs State of Kerala

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court contending that they were not sent for training by the respondent Corporation to enable them to be eligible to the promotional post.

The facts in brief are that petitioners are working in the second respondent Corporation in different posts in the cadre of Assistant Grade I and some of them are in the promotional post of Accountant-in-charge/Assistant Manager-in-charge. To be eligible to the promotional posts of Accountants and Assistant Managers, the petitioners are required to possess I Class M. Com./MBA/Inter ICWA/Inter CA or holding certificate proving successful pass in training conducted by the IMG as per Exhibit P3 Government Order dated 22.10.1992.

The grievance of the petitioners, as has been put forward by the learned counsel, is that since petitioners do not possess the academic qualifications for the grades mentioned in Exhibit P2 recruitment rules, it is incumbent on them that they should undergo training to make themselves eligible to the promotional post. Without much of a reason, the authorities have been dragging on the issue by not sending the petitioners to training. In the meanwhile, juniors to the petitioners in the Corporation are stealing a march over them and securing promotions, based on their academic qualifications. The learned counsel for the petitioners has underlined the aspect that denial of promotional avenues by not sending the petitioners for necessary training is for no fault of the petitioners. To remedy the inequitable situation, it is essential for the Corporation to ensure that petitioners are sent for training without further delay.

The learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that petitioners have already made a representation in Exhibit P5 dated 19.11.2013 seeking indulgence of the Corporation, their employer, to send them for training. On the other hand, espousing their cause, even the union of the petitioners has also submitted another representation in Exhibit P6 dated 15.10.2013. Subject to administrative convenience, the authorities would be willing to consider the representations for providing the training to the petitioners. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in the light of the willingness expressed by the Corporation to consider the issue in accordance with law, it may not call for any mandamus on the part of this Court in this regard.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation apart from perusing the record.

The qualifications for the promotional post are in the alternative. At the same time, the aspect of providing necessary training is entirely in the discretion of the respondent Corporation. However, on a mere technicality of not getting the necessary training on time, in which, eventually, the petitioners have no role to play at all, it is, in the opinion of this Court, inequitable, to make the petitioners suffer, on account of any administrative delay in sending the petitioners for training. Even in the welfare of the Corporation, it may not be desirable to have the staff, whose promotional avenues stand affected, owing to these curable laches, if any.

On an earlier occasion, a learned Division Bench of this Court in Ammini, K. Vs. State of Kerala and Others considered some what a similar case and held as follows:

"The candidate had no opportunity or occasion to attend the training on his own. It was submitted in the O.P. concerned that in the matter of sending candidates for training mistakes arose and consequently juniors became qualified earlier than the seniors as far as the Survey training qualification is concerned. The reason is that such late acquisition of qualification is not attributable to any fault on the part of the candidate; but it is only on account of the mistake committed by the Department in not sending them for training at the relevant point of time. It was further found that even without an order invoking power under R. 39 of the K.S. & S.S.R. the seniors could enforce their right."

In the light of the above principle of law and having regard to the rival submissions made by respective counsel for the petitioners and Corporation, this Court disposes of the writ petition by directing the respondent Corporation to consider the representations in Exhibits P5 and P6 at the earliest duly taking into account the judicial opinion expressed by this Court on an earlier occasion in Ammini''s case (supra) and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.