IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 26071 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HASHIM P.M., 'HARIS NIVAS', MUNDATHICODU POST, TRICHUR- 680 595. BY ADV. MR.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI.PRAMOD CHATHAMPALLY, HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KASARAGOD. 4. SMT.MANJUSHA T.T., HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEDUMANGAD. 5. SRI.NJANAMBIKA V.A., HEAD OF SECTION COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KADUTHURUTHY. 6. SAJAN E.V., HEAD OF SECTION COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR. WP(C).No. 26071 of 2007(D) 7. SMT.A.K.PARVATHY, HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, MAHARAJA'S TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, TRICHUR. 8. MUHAMMED AZEER A.K., ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SRI.SAJU SHANKAR S., HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, PUNALOOR. * ADDL. R10 TO R12 IMPLEADED ADDL. R10: REINU B.JOSE, HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, MUTTOM. ADDL. R11: ASHA G.NAIR, HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, IPT AND GPT, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD. ADDL. R12: SAJNA K.PAULOSE, HEAD OF SECTION, COMPUTER ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI. *ADDL. R10 TO R12 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.645/2008 DATED 15/01/2008. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEK CHAND R3, R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH R5, R8 & R9 BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL ADDL. R10 BY ADV. MR.P.J.JOSEPH PANIKKASSERY ADDL. R11 & R12 BY ADV. MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26071 of 2007(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE GRADUATION LIST OF LECTURERS IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.P.NO.261/89 H.EDN. DATED TRIVNDRUM 19/12/1989. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN TABULAR FORM SHOWING THE EXPERIENCE IN DETAIL OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SELECT LIST FOR PROMOTION TO THE POST OF HEAD OF SECTION IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF SELECT LIST. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY, HIGHER EDUCATION. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE GOVT. OF KERLA, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMNT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM FLUID CONTROL RESEARCH INSTITUTE,KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.F 36-14/96-TSIV DATED 06/05/1997. EXT.P11 SERIES: COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES TO PROVE THE EXPERIENCE. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KALAMASSERY. EXT.P12(a): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/10/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 27935/2006. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.15393/L3/08/H. EDN. DATED 13/08/2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/12/2008. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.38708/L3/08/H.EDN. DATED 29/12/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.261/89/H.EDN. DATED 19/12/89. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.10/93/P & ARD DATED 27/01/83 //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.26071 of 2007-D - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the non consideration of his claim by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion as Head of Section. 2. The petitioner is having the qualification of B.Tech. Degree in Computer Engineering from Cochin University. He was selected for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Government Polytechnic. He was rank No.10 in the ranked list published by the Public Service Commission. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Maharaja's Technological Institute, Thrissur. Going by Ext.P1 gradation list published by the Department of Technical Education, the petitioner was rank No.5 whereas respondents 4 to 9 were assigned rank Nos.6 to 9, 12 and 20 respectively. 3. The next promotion is to the post of Head of Section. Ext.P2 shows the required qualification. Apart from the academic qualification, the candidate should have 8 years experience in Engineering profession of which at least 3 years should be teaching experience as Lecturer not below the Diploma level in recognised/approved institutions. Going by Ext.R2(b), Sub-rule (ab) of Rule 10 of K.S. & S.S.R. was introdued, whereby the wpc 26071/2007 2 experience earned in other institutions mentioned therein could also be counted for the purpose of counting eight years' experience. Ext.P3 is the table which shows the details of experience gained by the petitioner which will be 8 years and 9 days. But still, the petitioner was not considered when the select list was published by the D.P.C. which met on 31.10.2006. Thereafter, he filed a representation. While that was pending, the select was cancelled. Again, the D.P.C. met on 12.1.2007 and Ext.P6 is the select list published. Therein, the petitioner was not included, and he was superseded. It appears that the petitioner filed another representation dated 16.12.2006 through proper channel requesting the Government to rectify the anomalies in the select list and thereafter by Ext.P7 representation dated 9.4.2007 he again requested the Government to reconsider the matter. His father-in-law filed a representation before the Government which was answered as per Ext.P8 stating that the experience as Apprentice trainee at Fluid Control Research Institute, Palakkad cannot count as teaching experience. The matter was pursued by the petitioner before the Government and by Ext.P13, he was given a reply by the Complaint Cell. It is stated therein that his experience as Guest Lecturer for a period of one month and 17 days from 14.6.1999 to 30.7.1999 in the Central Polytechnic College, Thiruvananthapuram was not brought to the notice of the D.P.C. which met wpc 26071/2007 3 on 12.1.2007. Since no details of such outside experience of the incumbent was made available promptly in the office of the Director of Medical Education at the time of D.P.C., his case was not considered. Again, he filed Ext.P14 representation through proper channel before the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education (L) Department. Ext.P15 is the reply given stating that since the matter is pending before this Court, the Government is unable to take a decision. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent dated 29.7.2008, in para 4 it is averred that the experience of the petitioner as Guest Lecturer for the period of one month and 17 days from 14.6.1999 to 30.7.1999 in the Central Polytechnic College, Thiruvananthapuram was not brought to the notice of the D.P.C. which met on 1.12.2007. The petitioner failed to submit the details of the experience, i.e. from 14.6.1999 to 30.7.1999 during the time of the meeting f the D.P.C. 5. Ext.P11 series are the documents in support of the claim raised by the petitioner. It is the submission of the petitioner that all these details have been forwarded to the Government and even along with Ext.P3, such details were there. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the petitioner was superseded only because of absence of wpc 26071/2007 4 materials and his experience as Apprentice trainee cannot be counted at all. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any reliefs. 7. The earliest document produced in support of the claim of the petitioner is Ext.P3. In Ext.P3 the details of his experience in Central Polytechic College, Thiruvananthapuram for a period of one month and 17 days from June 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999 is shown. Therefore, it is not as if the petitioner has not claimed the above period before the appropriate authority at the relevant point of time. If at all any further materials were required from the petitioner, he should have been asked to make them available. The petitioner has got a case that all the necessary materials were forwarded along with Ext.P3. Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner submitted a representation as item 3 therein which is dated 16.3.2007. From Ext.P6, it is evident that the D.P.C. which met on 12.1.2007 prepared a select list. Therefore, the representation stated to have been filed on 16.3.2007 will be within time. It is clear from the reference therein that the same was received in the office of the Principal Secretary on 21.3.2007 and Ext.P7 is the further representation submitted by him. 8. The stand taken in Ext.P8 cannot, therefore, be supported. In fact, in Ext.P8 the only answer given is by relying on Rule 10(ab) of KS & SSR wpc 26071/2007 5 that whereby his experience as Apprentice trainee at Fluid Control Research Institute, Palakkad cannot be treated as teaching experience. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is not claiming the said experience for counting the 8 years experience. The petitioner is claiming the experience gained by him between June 14, 1999 to July 30, 1999 (one month and 17 days) which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, will satisfy the requirement of 8 years service. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P14 is pending before the Government. It is up to the Government to take a decision on Ext.P14 in accordance with the relevant rules. The period claimed by the petitioner, if counted, he will be having 8 years and 9 days of service. The only plea now raised is that there were no materials at that point of time before the D.P.C. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the said plea appears to be not sustainable. Therefore, the first respondent will pass appropriate orders on Ext.P14 after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 to 12, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The matter will be considered by the Government on merits while passing appropriate orders after adverting to the relevant aspects. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the Government finds in his favour, he will wpc 26071/2007 6 be entitled for seniority also. The same is a matter for the Government to consider. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/