IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35235 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ U.Y.JOHN, TECHNICAL OFFICER, ENGINEERING DIVISION, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 2. KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC, K.S.C.T.E THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35235 of 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF RULES FOR RECRUITMENT AND ASSESSMENT PROMOTION OF TECHNICAL STAFF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.5.07 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DATED 31.5.07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY OF 7.10.2007 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.03 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35235/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Technical Officer in the Engineering Division of the Kerala Forest Research Institute, the second respondent. He has approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 notification to the extent to which the second respondent has called for applications for appointment to the post of Civil Engineer in the second respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.Ramakrishnan contends that as per Ext.P1 Rules framed by the first respondent, which exercises control over the second respondent also, there can be no lateral entry by direct recruitment to the intermittent Grades in Group I and II. Direct recruitment is confined to the entry posts in Groups I and II (5.4 of Ext.P1). It is pointed out that the scale of pay sought to be given to the post of a Civil Engineer as per Ext.P4 will show that it must be treated as an intermittent post in Group I. Consequently lateral entry to the said post by direct W.P.(C).35235/2007 2 recruitment should be treated as prohibited by clause 5.4 of Ext.P1, it is contended. 2. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 1 and 2. It is inter alia contended that the recruitment rules applicable to the second respondent are those contained in Ext.R2(d). Ext.R2(d) provides, for direct recruitment as method of appointment to the post of Engineer. Ext.P4 has been issued accordingly. The qualification for the post of Engineer is prescribed as degree in Civil Engineering with five years experience. Same qualification is provided in Ext.P4 also. Petitioner does not possess the said qualification. He is ineligible to apply pursuant to Ext.p4. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the second and third respondents. 4. Mr.P.Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that Ext.P1 recruitment rules apply to the second respondent which can only be considered W.P.(C).35235/2007 3 as a body under the control of the first respondent. Said recruitment rules clearly prohibits a lateral entry to the post other than the posts of entry. Post of Technical Officer is an intermittent Post included in group I. Post of an engineer should be treated as a promotion post to that of Technical Officer. In fact, the scale of pay now made available to the Engineer would be that which will be available to the Technical Officer, who is granted a higher grade. 5. Mr.S.M.Prem, learned counsel for the second respondent, submits that the recruitment rules applicable to the second respondent is Ext.R2(d). Ext.R2(d) clearly provides the method of appointment to the post of Engineer as direct recruitment. The qualifications applicable to the post of Civil Engineer, noted in Ext.P4 is that which is mentioned in Ext.R2(d). 6. There are two things which stand in the way of accepting the petitioner's contention. Firstly post of Engineer (Civil) is not included in group I and II in W.P.(C).35235/2007 4 Ext.P1. It is therefore difficult to infer a prohibition against filling up of the said post by direct recruitment by virtue of clause 5.4 of Ext.P1. Second reason is that Ext.R2(d) specifically provides for the post of Engineer and qualification now prescribed in Ext.P4 is that which is provided in Ext.R2(d). Mr.Ramakrishnan submits that Ext.R2(d) is no longer in force due to the enforcement of Ext.P1. I find it difficult to accept this contention at least as regards those posts which are not specifically provided in Ext.P1. I do not think it necessary to express any opinion as regards the posts which are referred to in both Ext.R2(d) and Ext.P1. But as noted above, the post of Engineer is not specifically included in groups I and II in Ext.P1. If that be so, assuming that Ext.P1 rules should be treated as prevailing over Ext.R2(d), for the reason that it is at later in point of time and also for the reason that it is formulated by the first respondent, the said principle may not have been any application to the post of Engineer. W.P.(C).35235/2007 5 7. Moreover, there is nothing in Ext.P1 rules, which indicates that it supersedes all the rules made by the second respondent prevailing as on the date of Ext.P1. It is also noteworthy that neither Ext.P1 nor Ext.R2(d) have any statutory backing as such. I will have to take further note of the fact that the petitioner is not qualified for the post of Engineer going by either Ext.R2 (d) or by Ext.P4. In these circumstances, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P4. Writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs