IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 19986 of 2001(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.RADHAKRISHNAN, (RETD. ADDL. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES) "MALAYA", SREEKARYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM SRI.P.VISWAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FISHERIES & PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.32386/2001 IN O.P. NO.19986/2001 DISMISSED: 7.8.2008 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF SELECT LIST NOTIFICATION DT.5.2.2000. P2: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.10.7.2000 OF R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.9.1.2001 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.21.3.2000 SUBMITTED BY .DO. P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.4.7.2000 IN O.P. 18679/2000-W OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: TRUE OCPY OF LETTER DT.18.9.2000 OF R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT.19.12.2000 OF R1. P8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O. DT.7.2.2001 OF R1. P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O. DT.27.6.2001 OF R1. P10: TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.25.11.2006. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.19986 of 2001 .................................................................... Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order whereunder the original promotion given to him on 7.2.2001 as Additional Director of Fisheries is cancelled and he is restored to the post of Joint Director. The petitioner after serving as Additional Director based on promotion given on 7.2.2001 worked for seven weeks and retired on 31.3.2001. The salary paid and the pension now being paid is based on his pay in the cadre of Joint Director. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader and have also gone through the counter affidavit and reply affidavit filed by the parties. It is conceded that there was only one post of Additional Director of Fisheries which was occupied by one person Mr.C.A.Khalid. When this person was sent on deputation, the next one by name Mr.P.K.Sukumaran was promoted as Additional Director and he was also sent on deputation. The petitioner being next in line was promoted by relying on Rule 37 of Part I KSR. However, later the promotion given to the petitioner was cancelled vide Ext.P9 which is under challenge. The counter affidavit filed show that petitioner is entitled to promotion only on retirement of Mr.P.K.Sukumaran 2 who was promoted after Mr.Khalid went on deputation. Petitioner's case is that as and when Mr.Sukumaran went on deputation, he was promoted and therefore, his promotion is justified. I do not know based on what Rule several persons are systematically promoted from the cadre of Joint Director to Additional Director when there was only one post of Additional Director in the department. To my mind, so long as Mr.Khalid remains in service, there is no scope for promotion of anybody to the post of Additional Director except on temporary, provisional or stop-gap basis. Regularisation will take effect either on retirement of Khalid or on his absorption in the post to which he was sent on deputation. Even if the next in line is provisionally promoted and sent on deputation, promotion of the third man to fill up that post again should be only on provisional basis as the posting is against vacancy of first man namely, Mr.Khalid, who was sent on deputation. Petitioner's case is that if Mr.P.K.Sukumaran's promotion is valid, his promotion is also valid. However, I do not think a wrong thing will get corrected by repetition of the mistake. In Ext.P10 issued in 2006, the department appears to be committing the same mistake by promoting several persons to higher grade when there is only one post of Additional Director. However, if there is any provision to promote any number of persons from the post of Joint Director to Additional Director when there is 3 only one post of Additional Director, then I feel petitioner also should be the beneficiary of such benefit granted to others. The O.P. is therefore, disposed of with direction to the first respondent to call for the records pertaining to promotions given to all these persons and if promotions are given to others wrongly, to cancel the same after notice to them and if benefit is granted to them, grant it uniformly to everybody. The first respondent shall take a decision within a period of three months from date of production of copy of this judgment. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms