IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10029 of 2008(R) PETITIONER: --------------------- K.VIKRAMAN NAIR, PREVENTIVE OFFICER, EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI SMT.K.B.REKHA SRI.R.JYOTHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, STATE EXCISE ACADEMY & RESEARCH CENTRE, THRISSUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10029 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Preventive Officer in the Excise Circle Office, Karunagappally. According to him, he has got 20 years' experience in the Excise Department and was promoted as Preventive Officer in 2001. He has more than 6 years for superannuation. 2. Apparently, the petitioner suffers from disc prolapse. He refers to Ext.P2(a) medical certificate. The Special Rules in the Excise Subordinate Service contemplates a mandatory training for Excise Preventive Officers. According to the petitioner, such training is actually required only for fresh recruits or recently promoted candidates. I am not able to discern a specific provision under which a candidate could be exempted from training. But, nevertheless, Ext.P1 shows that several persons have been exempted from training under orders of the Excise Commissioner. This seems to be the procedure, which has been in vogue in the Department, as evidenced by Ext.P3 also. There may be compelling medical grounds W.P.(C).NO.10029/08 :: 2 :: which would justify exemption of a candidate from training. Such exemption must be normally for a particular period and permanent exemption could possibly be given by the Government as such, in the absence of a specific enabling provision in that regard under the Special Rules. Be that as it may, going by Exts.P1 and P1(a), the petitioner's request for exemption from training ought to be considered by the Excise Commissioner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: On production of a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent, he shall make arrangement for the petitioner's examination by a Medical Board and the recommendation of the Medical Board shall be then forwarded to the Excise Commissioner by the Assistant Excise Commissioner, the 3rd respondent. This process shall be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).NO.10029/08 :: 3 :: Thereupon, the Excise Commissioner shall consider whether the petitioner is to be exempted from training and if the Commissioner is of the opinion that there is no necessity for the petitioner to be exempted from training, the petitioner shall be bound by such decision. In circumstances where there is prima facie material to show that the petitioner suffers from an illness which may aggravate by the training in question, the petitioner shall not be compelled to undergo such training until a decision is taken by the Excise Commissioner, in the manner aforementioned. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge