IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 16189 of 2004(S) -------------------------- ( OA.511/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ) PETITIONER: ----------------- K.KADER, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE AZEEZ, HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL AMINI, RESIDING AT KALLAKAKEL, AMINI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATI. 2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CURSON ROAD, NEW DELHI. 4. B.NANDI NAMPOOTHIRI, ASSISTANT HEADMASTER, GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, CHETLAT ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 5. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, C.A.T. BUILDING, MANAPPATTIPARAMBU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.P. R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, SC, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16189 of 2004(S) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO. 511 OF 2001 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM DATED 17.06.2002. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.511 OF 2001 DATED 16.06.2001 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN O.A.NO. 511 OF 2001 DATED 04.12.2001. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A.NO. 511 OF 2001 DATED 12.02.2003. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN O.A.NO. 511 OF 2001 DATED 07.05.2003. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.03.2004 IN O.A. NO.511 OF 2001 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1 : SENIORITY LIST OF OFFICERS IN THE CADRE OF TRAINED GRADUATE TEACHERS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004 ................................................................................... Dated this the 21st February, 2008 J U D G M E N T K. Balakrishnan Nair, J: The petitioner, who was working as Headmaster on adhoc basis in a Government High School in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep filed O.A. 511 of 2001 challenging Annexure A5 order dated 14.06.2001 produced along with Ext. P1 original application. By that order, the 4th respondent herein, viz., B. Nandi Nampoothiri was promoted as Headmaster. According to the petitioner, as a result of the said order, he faced reversion. So he filed O.A.No. 511 of 2001, challenging Annexure -A5 order. 2. The petitioner submitted that a Committee of Officers considered his claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster from the feeder category of Trained Graduate Teachers and he was promoted as Assistant Headmaster by Annexure -A1 order dated 21.03.1990. Later, by Annexure-A2 order dated 31.07.1997, he was further promoted as Headmaster on adhoc basis for a period of six months. The said period was later extended without any time limit, it is submitted. While so, the 4th respondent, Nandi Nampoothiri was promoted on regular basis as Assistant Headmaster as per Annexure-A3 order dated 02.11.2000. The said order would show that he was promoted on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee . As per the recruitment rules in force, up to 1996, a Trained Graduate Teacher could be promoted without acquisition of Post Graduate qualification as Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster. But the recruitment rules were amended by Notification dated 25.01.1996 providing that Post Graduate qualification is an essential W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004 2 qualification for promotion as Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster. But the vacancies which arose prior to 1996 were filled up in accordance with the recruitment rules then in force. 3. The petitioner submitted that while he was working as Headmaster, Mr. Nandi Nampoothiri was working as Assistant Headmaster. Since, the latter was promoted to the post of Headmaster by Annexure A5 order in preference to him, the same is illegal. Though his promotion, ordered as per Annexure A1 order to the post of Assistant Headmaster, is shown as adhoc promotion, it should be treated as a regular promotion because his claim for promotion was considered by a Committee of Officers, it is submitted. It is also submitted that since the 4th respondent, Mr. Nandi Nampoothiri was promoted as Assistant Headmaster in the vacancy of one P.K. Narayanan, who was promoted on adhoc basis to the post of Headmaster, the promotion granted to the 4th respondent, Mr. Nandi Nampoothiri as per Annexure A3 order should also be treated as adhoc or provisional . Therefore, there was no justification in promoting the 4th respondent as Headmaster and in reverting the petitioner in that process on the basis of Annexure A5 order, it is contended. So the above O.A. was filed before the C.A.T. seeking appropriate reliefs. 4. The Lakshadweep Administration filed a reply statement contending that by Annexure A3 order, the 4th respondent was granted promotion on regular basis on the basis of the decision of the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee . The petitioner was junior to the 4th respondent. It was stated that the petitioner's claim was also considered for promotion. For the year 1994, there were 9 vacancies and in those vacancies, senior persons including the 4th respondent were promoted. Since the petitioner was lower down in the seniority, he could not be promoted . The official W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004 3 respondents had also produced the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 23.09.2000, based on which the 4th respondent was promoted on regular basis as Assistant Headmaster. In view of regular promotion granted to the 4th respondent as Assistant Headmaster, he was preferred in the matter of further promotion on adhoc basis as Headmaster as per Annexure-A5 order. So the official respondents prayed for dismissal of O.A.511 of 2001. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides upheld the contentions of the Administration and dismissed O.A.No.511 of 2001. Hence this Writ Petition, challenging Ext.P6 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which Ext.P1 O.A. was dismissed. 5. Learned Senior Counsel, Shri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the writ petitioner reiterated the contentions of the petitioner raised in the Original Application (O.A.No.511 of 2001), which we have already noticed above. We heard learned counsel Shri P.R.Ramachandra Menon also, who appeared for Lakshadweep Administration. 6. The post of Assistant Headmaster is the feeder category for promotion to the post of Headmaster. The claims of the petitioner and 4th respondent for regular promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and it was decided to promote the 4th respondent. Based on that decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, Annexure A3 order was issued. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge that order and thus it has become final. So for further promotion to the post of Headmaster, the 4th respondent had to be preferred and that was only done in this case. The contention of the petitioner that his promotion in 1990 on adhoc basis as Assistant Headmaster should be treated as regular cannot be accepted, in view of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee W.P.(C) No. 16189 OF 2004 4 and consequential promotion orders issued as per Annexure-A3. The said contention cannot be accepted in the absence of any challenge against Annexure-A3 also. The next contention raised by the petitioner that the 4th respondent has been promoted to the vacancy which arose out of promotion of one Mr. Narayanan, on adhoc basis and therefore the 4th respondent could have been promoted only on adhoc basis also cannot be accepted. As evident from the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Administration has identified 9 substantive vacancies for promotion in the year 1994. The 4th respondent was promoted to one of those vacancies. Such promotees may be posted in exigencies of service to temporary vacancies also. Therefore, the said contention is plainly untenable. Further, this contention need not be considered now since the petitioner has failed to challenge Annexure A3 in appropriate proceedings. As long as Annexure A3 remains in force, the 4th respondent was rightly preferred for further promotion as Headmaster. In the result, we find nothing illegal with the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk