IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 32588 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. GEETHAKUMARI.G., W/O.DEVADAS KURUP, DHANYA NIVAS, PERINGALA P.O., MULAKUZHA, ALAPPUZHA (PEON, ASSISTANT DEVASWOM AUDIT OFFICE, THIRUVALLA). 2. THULASEEDHARAN NAIR, S/O.VASUDEVAN PILLAI, BABU VILASAM, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYANKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (PEON, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). 3. N.USHA RANI,W/O.R.RAJASEKHARAN, KURIYANNOOR HOUSE, THRIKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM (PEON, ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THRIKARIYOOR). 4. K.T.KRISHNENDU, S/O.S.KRISHNAN POTTI, TC 8/1415, SREEKRISHNA VILASOM, PUTHEN MADHOM, THIRUMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-6 (PEON CULTURAL DIRECTORATE OFFICE, SCCHR LIBRARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDING, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32588 of 2006 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING ROC NO.1045/87/Est DATED 15.12.05 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.7.06 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 3.1.06 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE DATED 3.1.06. EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.11.06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 2.4.07 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. EXT.P6- ORDER DATED 21.8.07 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2. EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 10.10.06 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.8.06 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).20543/06-U AND REFERRED TO IN EXT.P6 ORDER (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).32588/2006 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners are low paid Devaswom employees presently working as Peons in the Establishment wing of Devaswom. As per Ext.P1 order dated 15.12.2005, it was decided that 10% of the vacancies in the post of Lower Division Clerks/Sub Group Officers should be made available to low paid employees among Temple employees and 8% of the vacancies should be made available to low paid employees of the Establishment wing. This was later changed to 22% amongst the low paid employees, comprehending both the Temple Employees and the employees in the Establishment wing. As evidenced by Ext.P3 preliminary notification dated 3.1.2006, Board proposed that 18% of the vacancies arising in each calendar year in the cadre of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II shall be reserved to be filled up by appointment on promotion from the low paid employees in the Travancore Devaswom Board on the basis of common seniority list, according to the date of entry into the W.P.(C).32588/2006 2 service, irrespective of their category, ie, Establishment employees or Temple employees. Representations were submitted by the petitioners as Ext.P4, essentially requesting that their claim for promotion to the post of L.D.Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II may be considered against the 8% quota reserved for low paid Establishment Employees in the existing vacancies. Pursuant to a direction issued by this Court on 7.12.2006 in this writ petition, Board had considered the claim of the petitioners and by Ext.P5 order, Board has authorized the Devswom Commissioner to take a decision. By Ext.P6 order dated 21.8.2007, Commissioner purported to consider the claim of the petitioners and came to the conclusion that there was excessive promotion from among the low paid employees and therefore, there is no scope for further promotion as such. On this premise, claim made by the petitioners, was rejected. Ext.P6 order is also challenged in this writ petition. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. W.P.(C).32588/2006 3 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Subhash Chand and learned Standing Counsel for the Board, Sri.Venugopala Panicker. 3. Mr.Subhash Chand submits that there is an error which vitiates Ext.P6. It is contended that the Commissioner has proceeded to assess the vacancy position as on 14.8.2006. Further more, a reading of Ext.P6 order shows, it is contended, that a number of vacancies are assessed only in relation to the post of L.D.Clerk and it does not seem to have been assessed in relation to the post of Sub Group Officer Grade-II. The Rules contemplate L.D.Clerks to be interchangeable to the post of Sub Group Officer Grade-II and if that be so, the number of vacancies available to the low paid employees should be assessed with reference to both these posts taken together. That has not been done. 4. The second defect pointed out is that the Commissioner seems to have gone by 14.8.2006, in assessing the vacancy position. Therefore, the position W.P.(C).32588/2006 4 subsequent to 14.8.2006 till the date on which the rules were amended, as per Ext.P7 dated 21.11.2006 (date on which the amended rule is published), seems to have escaped notice. 5. I find force in both these submissions. Vacancies in the post of Sub Group Officer Grade-II are also entitled to be taken note of and included while determining the number of vacancies available for low paid employees, for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk/Sub Group Officer Grade-II. 6. Similarly, a reading of Ext.P8 judgment and the interim order passed by this Court in the present case shows that the low paid employees have a right to be considered as per the pre-amended rule against those vacancies which had arisen till the rule was amended. This is the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in V.V.Rangaiah and Others v. Sreenivasa Rao and Others (AIR 1983 SC 852). The amendment of the rule comes into force only when it is published in the W.P.(C).32588/2006 5 Gazette and therefore, the vacancies which arose till 21.11.2006 are to be filled up as per the pre-amended rules. In consequence, this will mean that the Board and the Commissioner are bound to take note of the vacancies which arose till 21.11.2006. Such consideration need not be restricted to 14.8.2006 which does not have any particular significance as such. 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed in part. Ext.P6 is quashed. The Commissioner shall pass fresh orders with regard to the claim of the petitioners in terms of the order already passed by this Court on 7.12.2006 by assessing the vacancy position available amongst L.D.Clerks/Sub Group Officers Grade-II, prevailing as on 21.11.2006 and then re-consider the case of the petitioners. Fresh orders shall be passed in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs