IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WA.No. 1672 of 2007(Y) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2557/2007 Dated 02/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER --------------------- N.SOUDA, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1673 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NOS. 1672 & 1673/2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated 8th January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants in these appeals challenge the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.28205/2006 and 2557/2007. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. W.A.No.1672/2007: 2. The appellant who entered service as a Lower Division Clerk in the Civil Judicial Ministerial Service on 22.3.1984 was, in due course, promoted as U.D.Clerk, Head Clerk and Junior Superintendent. She was finally promoted as Senior Superintendent by Ext.P3 order dated 13.2.2006, passed by the District Judge, Pathanamthitta. The vacancy arose as a result of the promotion of one Mr.C.D.Joy, Senior Superintendent as Sheristadar on 7.2.2006. In the meantime the Government issued Ext.P4 Special Rules governing the posts in the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Service, called the WA NOS.1672 & 1673/07 2 Kerala Judicial Ministerial Services Rules, 1994. As per the said amendment dated 21.1.2006, which was published in the Kerala Gazette on 21.2.2006, the unit for the purpose of promotion to the posts of Senior Superintendent/Junior Superintendent was modified as State instead of District. So, the High Court decided to review the promotion granted to the petitioner, as the same was ordered after 21.1.2006. Accordingly, the appellant was issued with Ext.P5 show cause memo. She filed Ext.P6 reply. Thereafter, State level seniority lists were published, in which the petitioner was not assigned the due seniority. Therefore, the writ petition was filed challenging Ext.P5, Ext.P9 proceedings publishing the seniority list and also Ext.P9(a) seniority list appended to Ext.P9. The appellant raised mainly two contentions. According to her, the amended Rule came into force only on 21.2.2006. She was promoted before that on 13.2.2006. So, the amendment cannot affect her rights. Secondly, it was contended that Mr.C.D.Joy, on whose promotion as Sheristadar, the appellant was promoted as Senior Superintendent, was entitled to be promoted in 2005 itself. If that be so, she was entitled to be promoted to that vacancy which arose before 21.1.2006. Therefore, even assuming the amended Rules took effect on 21.1.2006, her promotion is liable to be saved, as being to a vacancy which arose earlier. The learned single Judge considered both the WA NOS.1672 & 1673/07 3 contentions and rejected them. It is true, the learned Judge accepted the contention of the appellant that the amendment came into force only on 21.2.2006. It was also held that the various provisions in the Rules will take effect as provided therein. The words “at once” stated in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 1 were interpreted to mean that the Rule will take effect from 21.1.2006. It was further held that the appellant could be promoted only when the vacancy arose. As the vacancy arose only on 7.2.2006, she could have been promoted only on that date or subsequently. Thus the second contention raised by the appellant relying on the date of occurrence of the vacancy was also repelled. Hence this Writ Appeal. W.A.No.1673/2007: 3. The case of the appellants herein is identical to the case of the appellant in W.A.No.1672/2007. The appellants herein were promoted to the posts of Senior Superintendent and Junior Superintendent respectively on 10.2.2006. Since the said promotions were after 21.1.2006, they were also affected by the amendment to the Rules and they were also threatened by reversion. So, they filed W.P.(C) No.28205/2006, which was also heard and dismissed along with W.P.(C) No.2557/2007. The contentions of the appellants herein are identical to those raised by the appellant in W.A.No.1672/2007. WA NOS.1672 & 1673/07 4 4. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents submitted that though a Rule will have efficacy only when it is published in the gazette, it will take effect from the date provided in the Rule. In support of the submission, they rely on Section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, which provides that if the date on which the Act will come into force is not specifically mentioned in it, it will take effect from the date of publication of the same in the gazette. 5. It is common case of both sides that Ext.P4 Rules became enforcible when they were published in the gazette on 21.2.2006. It is also not in dispute that if different dates are provided in the Rules for the enforcement of different provisions therein, such a stipulation also will have efficacy. The only dispute between the parties is regarding the interpretation of the words “at once” used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules. The said sub-rule reads as follows: “(2) The rules relating to categories 3 and 5 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 16th day of September, 1985, the rules relating to category I shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of July, 1988 and the rules relating to other categories shall come into force at once.” According to the appellants, the words “at once” should be interpreted to mean that the relevant Rules will come into force from 21.2.2006. The WA NOS.1672 & 1673/07 5 learned Government Pleader and other counsel for the party respondents would point out that the relevant Rules will take effect from 21.1.2006, the date on which they were framed. 6. Having regard to the limited area of the dispute, we feel that it is unnecessary to refer the decisions cited at the Bar. The date of publication of the Rules is not a definite date. It will depend upon the work load in the Government Press concerned. When the Rule making authority framed the Rules on 21.1.2006 and provided that some of the provisions of the Rules will take effect “at once”, it should be taken that such provisions are intended to come into effect on 21.1.2006 itself, on its publication in the gazette. So, we agree with the conclusions of the learned single Judge on this point. 7. The appellants could be promoted, if only vacancies arise in the cadre of Senior Superintendent/Junior Superintendent, as the case may be. They were actually promoted immediately after the vacancies arose, though there was a delay of few days. But, the vacancies arose only after 21.1.2006. Therefore, the few days delay in promoting them is of no consequence, as far as the claim of the appellants are concerned. But, they say, vacancies in the cadre of Sheristadar arose long after 21.1.2006 and if the incumbents holding the post of Senior Superintendent were promoted in WA NOS.1672 & 1673/07 6 time, the same would have generated consequential vacancies not only in the cadre of Senior Superintendent but also in the cadre of Junior Superintendent. We are of the view that if the promotion of the incumbents to the cadre of Sheristadar is pre-dated and is given effect from a date prior to 21.1.2006, the appellants can claim consequential reliefs. Without prejudice to the said right, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. The continuance of the appellants in the promoted post was pursuant to the interim order of this Court. So, on reversion their salary shall be regulated in accordance with law. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/