IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 34834 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. G. REMANANA, AGED 58, S/O. T. DIVAKARAN, MENASSERIL, CMC-1, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT (DYEING) COIR BOARD, CENTRAL COIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. V.A. SEBASTIAN, AGED 58, S/O. V.V. ANTONY, VALIYAVEETTIL, VARANADU P.O., KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DIST, WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT (TESTING), COIR BOARD, CENTRAL COIR RESEARCH INSTITUTE KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NEW DEHI 110 001. 2. THE COIR BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, HEAD OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, COIR BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI BY ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34834 of 2009(Y) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. 24 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.90 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. 103 DATED 05.12.91 EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE PETITION DT:21.10.09 GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE SMT S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.34834 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners were originally appointed on an adhoc basis as Training Assistants on 2.9.1982 in the 2nd respondent Organisation and they were regularised in service as such by Ext.P1 order dated 12.9.1984. The Training Assistants are eligible for promotion to several higher posts in the same scale of pay. Training Assistants are not given any chance to opt for any particular promotion post. They get promoted by chance to particular promotion posts depending on the arising of vacancy in any one of the several posts to which the post of Training Assistant is a feeder category. But further promotion from the promoted posts is not uniform. Some of the promotion posts of Training Assistants are not a feeder category for any higher posts and consequently, the Training Assistants who get promotion to that particular category will not have any further promotion prospects. Others having the same qualifications, who get promoted to other promotions posts, would have further W.P.(C)No.34834/10 2 promotion prospects up to Regional Officer. This anomaly was noted by respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, they drafted amendments to the recruitment rules. But, those amendments would become rules only when the 1st respondent accepts the same under Section 27(2) of the Coir Industries Act. Ext.P6 is the draft amendment rules. The petitioners submit that the respondents 2 and 3 are not forwarding Ext.P6 draft amendment rules to the 1st respondent for further action thereon. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Declare that the non inclusion of the category of technical Assistant (Dyeing & Testing) in the feeder category to the post of Extension Service Officer grade in the second respondent Board is an anomally which infringes the fundamental rights of the petitioners and declare that persons holding the post of technical assistant (Dyeing/Testing) are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Extension Service Officer as similarly placed persons possessing same qualifications and experience in the grade of Inspector/Dyeing Assistant/Technical Assistant (spinning)/Extension Service Assistant enjoy same salary pattern and experience are included in the feeder category. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing 2nd and 3rd respondents to include the names of the petitioners also in the Departmental Promotion Committee to be convened by respondents 2 and 3 for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Extension W.P.(C)No.34834/10 3 Service officer of the 2nd respondent Board and give them promotion on adhoc basis. (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to forthwith forward and communicate Ext.P6 suggested amendments to the 1st respondent Ministry for the purpose of getting approval at the earliest and further direct the 1st respondent to consider the same and take decision in the matter of confirmation within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court”. 2. I have heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General also. 3. As far as reliefs 1 and 2 are concerned, the petitioners themselves agree that as per the existing rules, they are not in the feeder category for such promotion. Therefore, If I grant those prayers, it would be against the existing recruitment rules. However, having proposed Ext.P6 amendment rules, it is only appropriate that respondents 2 and 3 and the 1st respondent take the matter to its logical conclusion expeditiously, especially since the petitioners are due to retire on 31.10.2011. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: W.P.(C)No.34834/10 4 If respondents 2 and 3 have not forwarded the draft amendment rules to the recruitment rules to the 1st respondent, they shall do so within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1st respondent shall, thereafter, take a final decision regarding the amendment to the rules, taking into account the anomaly pointed out by the petitioners in this writ petition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the draft amendment rules from respondents 2 and 3. If the 1st respondent has already received Ext.P6 from respondents 2 and 3 the 1st respondent shall take the decision as directed above within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd