Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.M.RAVIKUMAR, U.D.CLERK versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.M.RAVIKUMAR, U.D.CLERK v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE - OP No. 4852 of 2003(C) [2007] RD-KL 15538 (13 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 4852 of 2003(C)

1. P.M.RAVIKUMAR, U.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.BOSE

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

Dated :13/08/2007

O R D E R

V.GIRI, J.

O.P.No.4852 of 2003 C

Dated this the 13th day of August, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who entered service as a Bill Collector (Lower Division Clerk) in the Pathanamthitta District, was later promoted and became a Panchayat Assistant in 1985 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 30.11.1987. Test qualification in relation to the post of Upper Division Clerk is Manual of Office Procedure and Account Test (Lower). Apparently, the petitioner acquired the said test qualification only in June, 1990. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was temporarily promoted as Upper Division Clerk with effect from 27.11.1987. While continuing in the said post, options were called for from persons in the Panchayat Common Service to be transferred to the Municipal Common Service. According to the petitioner, he gave such option and he would have become part of the Municipal Common Service but for the fact that the Pandalam Panchayat had been converted into Pandalam Municipality, prior to his joining the Pandalam Panchayat as Upper Division Clerk.

2. The petitioner contended that if the period of two years which is available in terms of Rule 13 A(i)(b) of Part I of the O.P.No.4852 of 2003 Kerala Service Rules should be computed with reference to the date when he would have become part of the Municipal Common Service. He contended that if it is so computed, then the test qualification acquired by him in June, 1990 must be treated as having been acquired within time.

3. The claim made by the petitioner in this regard was not accepted by the Department finding that the petitioner has not acquired the qualification within 2 years commensurate to four chances. Hence the petitioner was reverted to the post of Lower Division Clerk. It is common case that the petitioner acquired the test qualification in June 1990 and later the petitioner was promoted as Upper Division Clerk.

4. The challenge made by the petitioner against the reversion resulted in O.P.No.24162/02 which was disposed of by this court by judgment dated 27.8.2002 requiring the Director of Panchayats to look into the petitioner's appeal. This resulted in Ext.P9 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

5. The petitioner, admittedly, was not test qualified for holding the post of Upper Division Clerk when he was actually promoted to that post in 1997. The petitioner had to pass the O.P.No.4852 of 2003 test in two years commensurate to 4 chances during which period he could have acquired the qualification and claim eligibility for being promoted as Upper Division Clerk. The petitioner could not do so. He acquired the qualification only in June, 1990, beyond the period of 2 years. Naturally, reversion had to follow. Still later, the petitioner acquired the test qualification and he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in which post he continued. The petitioner has still later been promoted as a Head Clerk.

6. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner did not acquire the test qualification in the four chances which were available to him after his provisional promotion to the post of U.D.Clerk on 30.11.1987. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as U.D.Clerk on 16.2.1995. No junior to the petitioner was promoted as Head Clerk.

7. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Vinod Madhavan, the learned Senior Government Pleader and considering Ext.P9 order in the light of the provisions and the Rules, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot obviously claim a right to be promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk prior to O.P.No.4852 of 2003 his acquisition of the test qualification. The facility given to him under the Rules to acquire the same while occupying the promotion post provisionally is liable to be construed strictly. It is only to facilitate the incumbents to acquire the test qualification within two years. There is no rule which provides for extension of the time. If the test qualification is not acquired within time, the provisional promotion should be reviewed. That is what has been done in the present case. I do not find any error in Ext.P9. In the result, writ petition is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Sd/- (V.GIRI)

JUDGE

sk/ //true copy//

V.GIRI, J.

O.P.No.4852 of 2003

JUDGMENT

13TH AUGUST, 2007.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.