High Court of Kerala
Case Details
Case Law Search
Judgement
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER v. SHRI.A.O.PAULOSE - WA No. 71 of 2004 [2006] RD-KL 2588 (5 December 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 71 of 2004()1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
... Petitioner
2. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER, (PERSONNEL &HRD)
Vs
1. SHRI.A.O.PAULOSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)
For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :05/12/2006
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ.
=============================
W.A.NOS.71 & 82 OF 2004
============================
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2006
JUDGMENT
Abdul Gafoor,J.
The respondents in the writ petitions,the Bank, is aggrieved by the common judgment in O.P.Nos.25833 & 29718/2002, wherein the learned Single Judge directed to consider the claim of the petitioners, along with that of other eligible candidates, for promotion to the vacancies of Junior Management Grade Scale-I that arose in the year 2002-03 in the seniority channel as a result of the promotion of one among the persons included in that channel against the vacancy earmarked for merit-cum- seniority channel. The facts are as follows: 2. Promotion to the Junior Management level is
governed by Ext.P1 promotion policy. Clerks
in the
service of the Bank are considered for promotion to
Junior Management Grade Scale-I.
The policy envisages
setting apart of 90% of vacancies against seniority-cum
W.A.NOS.71 & 82/2004
-2-
merit channel and 10% of vacancies in seniority channel.
In the year 2002-03,
four vacancies were set apart
against 10% seniority channel and four persons as
mentioned in the later part of Ext.P3 were included in the
list, which was brought into force with effect
from
1-2-2002. No.1 among them was one Antony Manjooran.
It is an admitted case by both the
sides that Antony
Manjooran was later included in the select list for
promotion
in the merit cum seniority channel. Thus, in
fact, in the year 2002-03 as against four
vacancies set
apart for seniority channel, only three persons were
available. Clause
(3) of Ext.P1 promotion policy reveals as
under:
"3. Seniority Channel
10% of the posts earmarked for promotions
under Merit-cum-Seniority
channel will be set aside
for an exclusive seniority channel. Promotions
against
these posts will be made through an
interview to be conducted for the candidates who
attain the age of 58 years."
This promotion policy thus clearly makes it obligatory to set apart,
exclusively, 10% of the posts for seniority promotion. To satisfy this
W.A.NOS.71 & 82/2004
-3-
10%, there shall be four vacancies. This is admitted by the appellant.
The Bank cannot be deviate from that.
When four vacancies were
available in the seniority channel it cannot be reduced to three
indirectly. Necessarily one vacancy was exclusively available for
seniority channel promotion.
This is what has been directed to be
considered as per the impugned judgment. We do
not, therefore,
find any merit in these writ appeals. The Writ appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
JUDGE
Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU,JUDGE
ks. TRUE COPYP.S.TO JUDGE
Copyright
Advertisement
Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.