IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 6571 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- DR. C.S.JAYAKUMAR, VETERINARY SURGEON (ON DEPUTATION), ZOOLOGICAL GARDEN, DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS & ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM, SMT.SANTHI PREM, SRI. S.S.HUSSAIN, SRI. P.K. NIJOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, C G O COMPLEX, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3. MEMBER SECRETARY, CENTRAL ZOO AUTHORITY, BIKANER HOUSE, ANNEXE VI, SHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 011. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS AND ZOOS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. K.SADASIVAN PILLAI, CURATOR, ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA, R2 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.6571/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/02/2008 OF THE R.4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.6571/2008-G ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order by which the fifth respondent has been put in charge as Curator of the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following:- The petitioner is working as Veterinary Surgeon in the Zoological Garden, Thiruvananthapuram since 23/06/2002. It is pointed out that the Zoos in India are managed under the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and regulated by the National Zoo Policy, 1998. The Thiruvananthapuram Zoo falls under the category of large Zoo as per the National Zoo Policy proclaimed by the Central Zoo Authority. It is averred in paragraph (3) of the writ petition that as per clause (13) of Rule 10 of the Recognition of Zoo Rules, 1992 as amended in 2001 and in 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (g) of sub Section (1) of Section 63 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 every Large, Medium and Small Zoo shall have an Official with Master's Degree in Wildlife/Science/Zoology as a full W.P.(C). No.6571/2008 -:2:- time Curator solely responsible for looking after the upkeep of animals and maintenance of animal enclosures. The petitioner claims to be qualified with Specialisation in Animal Health Care, Zoo and Wildlife Management and Protection of Endangered Species. He has acquired Masters Degree in Wildlife Science from the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University apart from training in Endangered Species Conservation Trust, Jersey, U.K. 2. The fifth respondent has been working as Curator of Thiruvananthapuram Zoo. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent is a Graduate with B.Sc Degree in Zoology. The post of Curator is included in the Special Rules for the post in the Subordinate Service in the Department of Museums and Zoos. According to the petitioner, the full-time Officer responsible for looking after the upkeep of animals and maintenance of animal enclosures in the Thiruvananthapuram Zoo is the Superintendent which post is also included in the Special Rules for the Kerala Museums and Zoo Service, namely, the Kerala Museums and Zoos Service Rules, 1988. W.P.(C). No.6571/2008 -:3:- 3. The filling up of the post of Superintendent is either by promotion or by direct recruitment, in the absence of qualified hands. It is pointed out that for the said post, a Masters Degree in Zoology is required. But, by Ext.P2 order, the fifth respondent has been put in charge as Curator of the Zoo. It is contended that he is not eligible and qualified to hold the charge of the Superintendent also. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking for issuance of a Writ of Quo Warranto and, also Writ of Certiorari to quash proceedings Ext.P2. 4. The fifth respondent has not entered appearance even though notice has been served. 5. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner had been working in the Museums and Zoos Department on deputation basis from the Animal Husbandry Department during the period from 23/06/2002 to 15/07/2008. He was reverted to the parent Department after the maximum period of five years. It is also mentioned in paragraph (4) that the Zoological Garden at Thiruvananthapuram under the Museums and Zoos Department has the recognition of Central Zoo W.P.(C). No.6571/2008 -:4:- Authority. The appointment to the post of Curator is being made based on the qualification prescribed by the Government in the Special Rules framed for the purpose. The said Rules prescribe B.Sc Zoology as the requisite qualification for the post of Curator. The appointment to the post of Superintendent is made by promotion from among Curators as per the Special Rules. In the case of direct recruitment to the post of Superintendent, the qualification prescribed is M.A or M.Sc or any other equivalent qualification of a recognised University. The appointment, at present, to the post of Curator or Superintendent can be made only on the basis of Special Rules. It is also pointed out that unless and until the Special Rules are amended prescribing qualification based on Central Zoo Authority norms, the existing Special Rule shall prevail. 6. The recognition of the Zoo is under the National Zoo Policy proclaimed by the Central Zoo Authority. Therefore, the specifications made by the Central Zoo Authority will have to be adhered to by the State and its authorities, to retain the status of the W.P.(C). No.6571/2008 -:5:- zoo. Evidently, therefore, the Special Rules have to be amended to provide for the required qualification to various posts. The justification for putting the fifth respondent in charge, is the absence of the amendment of the Special Rules. No effort has been made so far to amend the Special Rules as evident from the averments in the counter affidavit. Even though the petitioner is only a deputationist, the question raised by the petitioner is of great importance. 7. Ext.P2 is only a charge arrangement. It cannot be treated as promotion evidently. In that view of the matter, the first respondent will have to take appropriate action to incorporate the suitable qualifications for the posts in question by amending the Special Rules without delay. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms