IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 11047 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.SEBASTIAN, ASST. FOREMAN, VIJNANAMUDRANAM PRESS, THE STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES KERALA, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURAL AFFAIRS (C)DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSTITUTE OF LANGUAGES KERALA, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER NR, DUKUO NIGABM R2 BY MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11047/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1.(A) (B) (C): COPIES OF KGT CERTIFICATES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF ORDER DT. 12/09/02 OF R.2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 01/06/06 BY PETITIONER TO R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT. 22/09/06 TO R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF REPLY DT. 15/02/2008 OF R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF PAGE 1 AND 6 OF THE MINUTES OF THE GOVERNING BODY DT. 04/03/2003. EXT.P.7: COPY OF ORDER DT. 04/02/2004 OF R.2. EXT.P.8: COPY OF ORDER DT. 23/05/2004. EXT.P.9: COPY OF GOVT. ORDER DT. 16/05/2007. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/04/09. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 04/12/2007 OF R.2. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 22/12/2007 BY R.2. TO MR. SUDHEER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11047 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 6th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has been working as an Assistant Foreman in the Vijnanodayam Press of the State Institute of Languages from 4-2-2004 onwards by virtue of Ext. P7 order of promotion. By Ext. P2, the Director of the Institute decided to amend the recruitment rules to the post of Proof Reader Grade I by adding one more feeder category, namely, Assistant Foreman. In Ext. P2, it was stated that the said amendment rules would come into force immediately subject to ratification by the governing body. Ext. P2 is dated 12-9-2002. The governing body of the State Institute of Languages, Kerala, among other things, considered the ratification of the amendment rules in its meeting held on 4-3-2003. Ext. P6 is the minutes of the said meeting. In the same, by the decision on item no. 20, the said action of the Director in amending the rules was ratified by the governing body. On 4-2-2004, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Foreman. A vacancy of Proof Reader Grade I arose on 1-6-2006. Since, according to the petitioner, the petitioner is a duly qualified Assistant Foreman, which is a feeder category for promotion to the post of Proof Reader Grade I, he filed a representation seeking promotion as such. That has been rejected by Ext. P5 order of the Government stating that on the basis of Special Rules which have not been approved, the petitioner cannot be given promotion as Proof Reader Higher Grade. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P5 order seeking the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5 calling records leading to it. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of proof reader Grade I. W.P.C. No. 11047/08 -: 2 :- 3. Issue a direction to the 1st respondent to avoid delay tactic on political enmity and grant promotion to the petitioner on the existing rules and procedure. 4. Issue a direction to the first respondent to avoid delay in considering the draft rules pending before it and issue necessary orders pertaining to the service of the employees of the Vinjanamudranam Press.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent taking two contentions. The first is that Ext. P2 amendment rules have not been approved by the governing body and the Government and therefore the same have not come into force. Therefore, it remains as draft rules, which cannot be enforced, since the original rule in which the post of Assistant Foreman is not feeder category to the post of Proof Reader Grade I, still survives. The second is that the petitioner is not a regular Assistant Foreman but only holding the post on working arrangement. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the 2nd respondent was able to inform me as to the constitution of the State Institute of Languages, Kerala and the power of the Government to interfere with the day-today affairs of the Institute. No memorandum of association or other document regarding the constitution of the State Institute of Languages, Kerala is produced. No rule or provision of law is quoted before me to show that recruitment rules framed by the Language Institute, Kerala with approval of the governing body would come into operation only after the Government approves the same. At the same time, counsel for the 2nd respondent does not dispute the fact that the State Institute of Languages, Kerala is an autonomous body. Normally, the Government's powers to interfere with the day-today affairs of an autonomous body under the Government is very limited, to the extent W.P.C. No. 11047/08 -: 3 :- of policy making. The rules were amended by Ext. P2 by the Director on 12-9-2002, which was approved by the governing body of the Institute on 4-3-2003. I am at a loss to understand why, if it is necessary to have the approval of the Government for implementing the same, no steps have been taken for the last six years in that regard. Therefore, I am inclined to assume that no such approval of the Government is necessary for implementing the amended rules. Therefore, I am of opinion that there is no impediment for the 2nd respondent in making promotions to the post of Proof Reader Grade I in accordance with the amended recruitment rules as evidenced from Exts. P2 and P6. 5. I do not find any merit in the contentions of the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is not a regular Foreman but only has been put in charge of Assistant Foreman on working arrangement. Ext. P7 clearly disproves that contention. Ext. P7 specifically states that the petitioner who has all the required qualifications for promotion to the post of Assistant Foreman has been promoted as Assistant Foreman in a vacant post of Assistant Foreman in the Binding Department, where a supervisor is absolutely necessary for the purpose of supervising the staff of that department including the employees working on piece rate basis. Of course, Ext. P7 states that the said promotion is subject to ratification of the governing body and the Government. Simply because the promotion has been made subject to ratification of the governing body and the Government, the same does not become any the less a promotion. In any event, I am unable to comprehend how a promotion made on 4-2-2004 still remains unratified, if ratification is necessary under law. Therefore, I am not inclined to consider the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Foreman as merely on working arrangement. I am inclined to hold that the petitioner is a fully qualified Assistant Foreman W.P.C. No. 11047/08 -: 4 :- eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of proof Reader Grade I. The post of Proof Reader Grade I is remaining vacant from 1-6-2006. A person has been merely put in charge of that post without making any promotion, which itself could be against the interest of the efficiency of the organisation itself. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that appropriate steps should be taken to make regular appointment to that vacant post. The petitioner is due to retire shortly within less than a year. That being so, it is only appropriate that the claim of the petitioner for promotion be considered in accordance with Exts.P2 and P6 and if the petitioner is eligible for such promotion in accordance with the special rules, the petitioner be given promotion. The above exercise shall be taken up and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I once again make it clear that the want of the ratification of the recruitment rules by the Government or of the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Foreman shall not be a ground for denying promotion to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/