IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 16265 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M.BALAKRISHNAN, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT, GVHSS, KADIRUR, KADIRUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERALA EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMETN SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.16265/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST FOR 2006-07 DT 26.8.06 IN RESPECT OF TAMIL KNOWING HSAS EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.D4/36271/06DPI DT 13.10.06 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.12.06. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 28.2.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 21.3.2007 IN WPC NO.9716/07 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.D4/36271/2006/DPI DT 21.3.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.106/G.EDN. DT 8.1.07 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16265 OF 2007 (J) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner commenced service as HSA from 13/12/83 and retired from service on 31/3/2007. 2. In Ext.P1 provisional seniority list, his name is included at Sl.No.3 and persons at Sl.Nos. 4 and 5 are his juniors. According to the petitioner, although he was eligible to be promoted, by Ext.P2 dated 13/10/2006, the person at Sl.No.4 of Ext.P1 was promoted as Headmaster. Subsequently by Ext.P3 dated 4/12/2006, the person included at Sl.No.5 of Ext.P1 was also promoted. Petitioner alleges that on both these occasions, the claim for promotion as Headmaster was overlooked. 3. He represented by Ext.P4, which was rejected by Ext.P6. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that his juniors were promoted for the reason that the petitioner had not acquired the requirement Departmental Test Qualification for the post of High School Headmaster. It is stated that although the Government had exempted persons like the petitioner from acquiring the test qualification, Government WPC 16265/07 :2 : issued order extending the term of exemption from passing Departmental test for promotion only on 8/1/2007 for a further period of one year w.e.f. 29/8/06. It is stated that after the issue of the order, there was no vacancy to which the petitioner could be promoted. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 13B read with its 4th proviso and contends that he is eligible for permanent exemption from the departmental test. However, a closer reading of the rule shows that such permanent exemption will enure to the benefit of an officer only for departmental tests, other than those prescribed as qualification in the Special Rules. A reading of para 4 of the counter affidavit shows that Account Test(Lower) and KER is a qualification prescribed in the Special Rules. If that be so, Rule 13B cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. 5. A reading of Ext.P7, the Government order dated 8/1/2007 extending the term of exemption for one year from 29/8/06 shows that the said order was issued after the juniors of the petitioner were promoted by Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner does not challenge the promotion of the aforesaid persons. If that be so, in the absence of any vacancy subsequent to the issue of WPC 16265/07 :3 : the Government order, petitioner could not have been promoted. The fact that the DPI had made the recommendation for extending the period of exemption and that if the recommendations were accepted in time, there would not have been an interval in the issue of Ext.P7, In my view, it does not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner. I am not inclined to grant any relief. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp