IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25792 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.143/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- 1. P.G. MANOHARAN PILLAI, S/O. LATE P.G. GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, ASSISTANT, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), KASARAGODE 671 124. 2. FREDRICK CRASTA, S/O.SABAS CRASTA, AGED 55 YEARS, ASSISTANT, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS-RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH) KASARAGODE - 671 124. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MADHUSOODANAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, (INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH), KASARAGOD - 671 124. 2. THE SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001. BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SC, ICAR FOR R1-2 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25792 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are Assistants working under the first respondent. Their grievance is against the steps taken by the first respondent to fill up the post of Assistant Administrative Officer which has become vacant as a result of retirement of one Mr.P.P.Hydross. They say, the said post should have been filled up under the seniority quota. The Recruitment Rules for the post of Assistant Administrative Officer provide a ratio of 3:1 between seniority promotion and Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota. The petitioners claim, the ratio is to be worked out with reference to the cadre strength and therefore when a promotee A.A.O. retires, the said vacancy should be filled up by promotion only. But, instead, the competent authority has issued Annexure A6 notification calling for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to fill up that vacancy. The aggrieved first petitioner filed Annexure A4 representation. But, the same was rejected by Annexure A5 non-speaking order. Challenging Annexure A5 and seeking consequential reliefs, the applicants filed W.P.(C)No.25792/08 -2- O.A.No.143/08 before the CAT. The O.A. was resisted by the respondents contending that first three vacancies of Assistant Administrative Officer were filled up by promotion and the fourth vacancy by LDCE method. Thereafter, three vacancies arose. They were filled up by promotion based on seniority. The next vacancy comes under the 25% quota of LDCE candidates. So, as per Annexure A6, steps have been taken to hold the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. According to them, one Mr.G.V.Nair who was working as Superintendent was appointed by placement as Assistant Administrative Officer. The same was promotion only. But the applicants would submit that he came to the post of Superintendent based on Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Later, when that post was upgraded as Assistant Administrative Officer, he also became an Assistant Administrative Officer. So, his appointment should be treated as under the LDCE quota only, it is submitted. 2. The point that arose for decision before the CAT was whether the appointment of Mr.G.V.Nair as Assistant Administrative Officer can be treated as by promotion or under LDCE quota. The Tribunal noticed that his appointment was preceded by the recommendation of a DPC and then only he was appointed. So, it is a W.P.(C)No.25792/08 -3- case of promotion. Based on that finding, the Tribunal held that the steps taken for filling up the present vacancy are correct. Challenging the said decision, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Madhusoodhanan pointed out that the placement of Mr.G.V.Nair from the post of Superintendent to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer cannot be taken as a promotion. The learned counsel took us through Annexure A3 order as per which he was appointed as Assistant Administrative Officer. The opening portion of the said order reads as follows: “Consequent on the upgradation of Group 'B' and 'C' administrative posts, vide O.O.No.2(22)97-Estt.dated 30.12.98 in pursuance of Council's letter No.15-12/98- Estt.I dated December 17, 1998 and on the recommendation of the DPC held on 23.12.98 and 30.12.98, Director has been pleased to appoint on placement the following officials to the higher grades as indicated against each, with effect from the date they report for duty.” Going by the above quoted portion of the order, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is correct and the contentions to the contrary cannot be accepted. The learned counsel for the W.P.(C)No.25792/08 -4- petitioner submitted that the ratio should have been worked out with reference to the cadre strength as on the date of issuance of the Amendment Rules. The same was not done in this case. We notice that the vacancies were filled up in the ratio of 3:1. The view taken by the competent authority on the implementation of the Rules is a plausible view. Therefore, we find no justification in interfering with the same. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn