IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 2480 of 2008(T) PETITIONER: M.S.KAMARAMMA,HINDI ASSISTANT RUBBER BOARD, KEEZHUKUNNU,COLLECTORATE PO KOTTAYAM 686 002. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR (CHERTHALA) SRIT.R.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: CHAIRMAN,RUBBER BOARD * KEEZHUKUNNU,KOTTAYAM 686 002. * RUBBER BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.3.08 IN I.A.3262/08 BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA & SRI.TERRY V.JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2480 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is currently employed as a Hindi Assistant in the Rubber Board and according to her, she is qualified to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator. As per the Recruitment Rules produced by the Rubber Board, along with the additional statement filed by them as Ext.R1(b), the qualifications for the post of Senior Hindi Translator are as follows: “a. Second class Master's Degree in Hindi with English as a subject at degree level or Second class Master's degree in English with Hindi as a subject at degree level or Second Class Master's degree in Sanskrit with Hindi and English as subjects at degree level from a recognised University or Institute. b. Diploma or Certificate in translation work from English to Hindi and vice versa from a recognised University or Institute. c. About 3 years experience in translation work from English to Hindi and vice versa including experience of translation of scientific or technical, terminological work.” W.P.(C).NO.2480/08 :: 2 :: 2. The method of recruitment of Senior Hindi Translator is by promotion by selection, failing which direct recruitment will be resorted to and promotion is from the post of Junior Hindi Translator. 3. The petitioner's claim for being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator made as per Ext.P8 was rejected as per Ext.P8-A. Two reasons are stated therein. Firstly, the petitioner is a Hindi Assistant and so far, it is not the feeder category for Senior Hindi Translator. Secondly, the petitioner is not qualified for promotion to the post Senior Hindi Translator. 4. Petitioner refers to Ext.P4 order dated 12.4.1989 by which certain posts were re-designated and the post of Hindi Assistant was re-designated as Junior Hindi Translator. She then refers to Ext.P2 order by which the incumbent who was re-designated as Junior Hindi Translator and thereafter when the post was upgraded, as Senior Hindi Translator, she was promoted provisionally to the post of Hindi Officer. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, Hindi Assistant must be W.P.(C).NO.2480/08 :: 3 :: designated as Junior Hindi Translator and therefore, she must be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator. She further submits that the qualifications mentioned in the Recruitment Rules are applicable only in the case of direct recruitment and not to the case of promotion. 5. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 6. Two aspects arise for consideration. Firstly whether the petitioner, who is admittedly appointed as the Hindi Assistant can claim a right for being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Hindi Translator. 7. The stand taken by the respondents in the statement filed by them is that earlier an incumbent, who was originally appointed as Hindi Assistant was later re- designated as Junior Hindi Translator and then the post was upgraded and then the incumbent was promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator. Subsequently, a post of Hindi Assistant arose in the year 1997 and the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Assistant. According to W.P.(C).NO.2480/08 :: 4 :: the petitioner, she was promoted as Hindi Assistant. Whether the petitioner was appointed or promoted as Hindi Assistant is not strictly relevant; the petitioner has been functioning as Hindi Assistant and she was recruited to the cadre of Hindi Assistant in the year 1997. Had the post of Hindi Assistant been designated as Junior Hindi Translator, as contended by the petitioner, as a permanent measure, there would have been no occasion for the petitioner to be appointed/promoted to the post of Hindi Assistant as such in the year 1997. Therefore, the case put forward by the respondents that the post of Junior Hindi Assistant was re-designated as Junior Hindi Translator in the year 1989 vide Ext.P4 dated 12.4.1989 as a one time measure seems to be correct. So also, the further case of the respondents that a post of Hindi Assistant as such was created afresh in 1997 and the petitioner was appointed to the said post in the year 1997 also seems to be correct. Whether the petitioner was appointed or promoted to the post of Hindi Assistant does not seem to make any difference as such. If this be so, W.P.(C).NO.2480/08 :: 5 :: the petitioner cannot be considered as being included in the feeder category for the post of Senior Hindi Translator going by Ext.R1(b) Rules. 8. The second question is to whether the petitioner is qualified for the post of Senior Hindi Translator. Going by the Recruitment Rules, the petitioner does not possess the first among the educational qualifications prescribed for the post Senior Hindi Translator. In these circumstances, I do not find any error in the stand taken by the respondents as per Ext.P8-A. The writ petition is bereft of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge