IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 36954 of 2002(Y) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.A.HARIKRISHNAN POTTY, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 2. P.P.RAJEEV, ASSISTANT SECTION OFFICER, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 2. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 3. E.M.PAULOSE, JUNIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 4. E.MURALEEDHARAN, JUNIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 5. M.S.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUNIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 6. A.N.SATHEESAN, JUNIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, DOCK LABOUR DIVISION, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI. 7. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.LALGI P.THOMAS,ADDL.CGSC FOR R7 SRI.N.SUGATHAN FOR R3 TO 6 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1,2 SRI. A.M. SHAFFIQUE SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1,2 SMT.PRIYA MAHESH FOR R1,2 SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN FOR R1,2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 36954/2002. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SENIORITY LIST. EXT.P2 MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DT. 6-6-1994. EXT.P3 RELEVANT EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION DT. 20-2-1998. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 28-10-1998. EXT.P5 RELEVANT EXTRACT OF RULES. EXT.P6 PROCEEDINGS DT. 23-11-1993. EXT.P7 PROCEEDINGS DT. 6-2-1997. EXT.P8 PROCEEDINGS DT. 4-7-1998. EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 1-7-1998. EXT.P10 OFFICE MEMORANDUM DT. 3-11-2000. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 26-3-2003. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 36954 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are erstwhile employees of the Dock Labour Board, which was amalgamated with the Cochin Port Trust. In the Cochin Port Trust, they were absorbed as L.D Clerks/U.D Clerks. As per Ext. P5 service rules, the L.D Clerks and U.D. Clerks were eligible for promotion to the post of Junior Labour Inspector. But, it was specified that for further promotion as Senior Labour Inspector and above from the post of Junior Labour Inspector, they would have to acquire the qualification of Diploma in Social Science. Despite the specific stipulation that for subsequent promotion Diploma in Social Science was compulsory, respondents 3 to 6 opted to be promoted as Junior Labour Inspector, whereas the petitioners who were seniors to them in the post of L.D. Clerks and U.D. Clerks opted to remain as L.D. Clerks/U.D Clerks for promotion in the channel available to them. However, to the dismay of the petitioners, the Port Trust amended Ext. P5 rules dispensing with the qualification of Diploma in Social Science for promotion to the post of Senior Labour Inspector. According to the petitioners, if they were aware of the fact that such relaxation would granted, they would also have preferred to be promoted as Junior Labour Inspector. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to promote the respondents 3 to 6 as Senior Labour Inspectors and above unless and until they acquire the qualification of Diploma in Social Science. ii) declare that no person who does not possess the qualification of Diploma in Social Science is entitled to be promoted as Senior Labour Inspector in Cochin Port Trust (in Dock O.P. No. 36954/2002. -: 2 :- Labour Division). Iii) injunct the respondents 1 and 2 from giving promotion to respondents 3 to 6 as Senior Labour Inspectors without their acquiring the qualification in Diploma in Social Science.” 2. The respondents would contend that without any allegation of mala fides, the petitioners cannot sustain the contentions in the original petition. The Port Trust decided to abolish the post of Junior Labour Inspector and therefore all the Junior Labour Inspectors were given promotion as Senior Labour Inspectors, dispensing with the qualification of Diploma in Social Science. According to the Port Trust, still for further promotions as per the recruitment rules presently in force, respondents 3 to 6 are liable to obtain the qualification of Diploma in Social Science and in so far as the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 go through different channels, the petitioners cannot complain about the promotion given to respondents 3 to 6 relaxing the qualification. It is also pointed out that the amendment of Ext. P5 rules has not been challenged by the petitioners. 3. I paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, the Port Trust has stated thus: “15. With reference to the statements in paragraph 16 it may be noted that though there is provision in the recruitment rules for inter-changing and inter-transfer of Class I post, the same has been applied only on very few occasions for administrative reasons. Further, in view of the fact that the relaxation of DSS/LLB for Senior Labour Inspector will not make the incumbents eligible for the still higher post of Assistant Labour Officer/Labour Officer, where these qualifications are mandatory, there is no basis for the petitioners' apprehension that respondents 3 to 6 will in due course become the superiors of the petitioner's through back door. It is therefore submitted that there is no basis for the petitioners, who are not in the feeder category post of Junior Labour Inspector, to be aggrieved by relaxation in O.P. No. 36954/2002. -: 3 :- qualification, even if the same is granted to respondents 3 to 6. Hence, they have no reason to file this original petition.” In view of the same, the petitioners would be satisfied if the said averments are recorded and the original petition is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ O.P. No. 36954/2002. -: 4 :-