IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4056 of 2007(G) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JACOB M.J., SENIOR GRADE TRADE INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, KORATTI, RESIDING AT CHEKKETH MOODA, KARUKUTTY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 576. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC, KORATTI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4056 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF APPOINTMNT ORDER NO.24161/81/DTE DATED 19.10.1982 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 PHOTOCOPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.EB2/19346/83 DATED 6.10.1983 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 PHOTOCOPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.EB2/52123/83 DATED 11.6.1984 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ET.P4 PHOTOOPY OF ORDER G.O.MS.NO.78/04/H.EDN. DATED 4.5.1994 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION EXT.P5 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB2/11488/96 DATED 23.3.1996 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P6 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO.EB2/4424/2001 DATED 24.2.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P7 PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.83/66/EDN. DATED 22.2.1966 OF THE RESPONDENT EXT.P8 PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 2.11.2005 EXT.P9 PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.EC3/31204/2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.2005 EXT.P10 PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT DATED 24.7.2003 IN WP(C) NO.8417/1993 B EXT.P11 PHOTOCOPY O ORDER NO.EB2/21737/2006(III) DATED 29.12.2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATE 13.11.1985 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER, VIDE NO.G.O.(P) NO.145/06/FIN DATED 25.3.2006 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE G.O.(RT) NO.183/09/H.EDN DATED 10.2.2009 EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.A/BILL/07 DATED 18.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P16 TRUE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COPY OF THE LIST OF 1ST GRADE TRADE INSTRUCTORS SHOWING SENIORITY APPENDED TO EXT.P6 EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / TRUE COPY / S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 4056 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Senior Grade Instructor working in the Government Polytechnic in the State. He was originally given promotion as Craft Instructor on 11.6.1984. He was later given ratio promotion as Trade Instructor (Senior Grade) on 1.4.1997. Aggrieved by the proposal of cancellation of the promotion given to the petitioner as Trade Instructor (Senior Grade), the petitioner has filed Exhibits P8 representation and obtained Exhibit P10 judgment from this Court for consideration of Exhibit P8 representation. Without hearing the petitioner, by Exhibit P11 the petitioner's ratio promotion as Trade Instructor (Senior Grade) has been cancelled by Exhibit P11 order. The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P11 order. 2. A counter affidavit is filed justifying Exhibit P11. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition on two grounds. First of all, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Trade Instructor on 1.4.1997. Exhibit P11 order is dated 29.12.2006, 9 years after his promotion. There is no case for the respondents that the petitioner has contributed to the mistake, if any, committed by the respondents in WP(C) No.4056/07 - 2 - the matter of promoting the petitioner. Even if the same is irregular, I am of opinion that at this distance of time the same cannot be cancelled. In that view, I am supported by a decision of this Court in Rajalekshmi v. State of Kerala (1992(1) KLT 458). 4. The second is on the merit of the case itself. Exhibit P11 order reads thus: “Shri.M.J.Jacob, Craft Instructor,Govt. Polytechnic College Koratty was granted ratio promotion as Trade Instructor (Senior Grade) with effect from 1.4.97 on Rs.4600-7125 (Pre-revised) as per the proceedings read above. On further verification of records it is found that he got promotion as Craft Instructor (Agriculture) under PVTC on 16.8.84 FN. The PVTC course along with the Post of Craft Instructor was already abolished from this Department. The candidates working at that time as Craft Instructor were accommodated against the available vacancies of Trade Instructor and they are still working as Craft Instructor. As the post of Craft Instructor is not inexistence, Shri.M.J.Jacob was not eligible for ratio promotion either in the post of Craft Instructor or in the post of Trade Instructor. Hence ratio promotion as Trade Instructor (Senior Grade) granted erroneously with effect from 1.4.97 to Sri.M.J.Jacob, Craft Instructor is hereby cancelled and he will continue as Craft Instructor in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 (Pre-revised).” WP(C) No.4056/07 - 3 - Admittedly, the petitioner was a Craft Instructor at the time of ratio promotion as Senior Trade Instructor. Even if the post of Craft Instructor was abolished (which is disputed by the petitioner), the petitioner's rights cannot be affected by the same. While he was a Craft Instructor, admittedly, he was eligible for the promotion to the post of Senior Trade Instructor, which only had been granted to him. Further, as seen from Exhibit P11, all craft instructors were accommodated in the post of Trade Instructor and he is the seniormost first grade trade instructor, which is the feeder category for promotion as Senior Trade Instructor. Therefore, the petitioner's promotion as Senior Grade Instructor could not have been cancelled for the reason that the post of Craft Instructor had been subsequently abolished. For the above reasons, Exhibit P11 is quashed. It is declared that the petitioner is entitled to all service benefits including further promotions monetary benefits arising from the quashing of Exhibit P11. Orders granting such benefits including further promotions, which accrues to him as a result of that declaration shall be issued by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE vgs