IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 31272 of 2005(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.A. VASUDEVAN, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER (RETD.), SPICES BOARD, "SREESYLAM", 46/618A, LOURDES MATHA CHURCH ROAD, PUDUKKALAVATTOM, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-682 026. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H. BY-PASS, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 025. 2. THE SPICES BOARD, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, COCHIN-682 025. ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.MITHUN MARKOS FOR R1 ADV.JOSEPH & KURIAN, SC, SPICES BOARD SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA, SC FOR BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARDON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31272/05 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.A3/1(9)/87/313 DT 6.3.1987 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ADM/RT/7/06/95/71 DT 16.9.96 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-2V/88/1962 DT 4.5.1988 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/2(1)/88/13254/97 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT 4.3.1997. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.11138/1997 DT 28.6.2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 26.7.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DT 14.10.05 ALONG WITH THE ORDER DT 10.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT BOARD DT 28.4.1988. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL MINISTRY TO THE SPICES BOARD. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SSLC BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 31272 OF 2005 (W) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner retired from the service of the 1st respondent as a Public Relations Officer on 31/3/96. In this writ petition, his grievance is mainly that he ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Director. He claimed promotion as Assistant Director and that was rejected by Ext.P3 order dated 4/3/97. This order was challenged before this Court in OP No.11138/97 and that original petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 28/6/05. Para 2 of Ext.P4 judgment reads as under:- Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that it is only in the interests of justice that the petitioner is given the opportunity as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel. If the petitioner is in a position to point out similar instances, there cannot be any justification in denying a similar treatment to the petitioner. Therefore, it is a matter for verification of the factual situation as well. In the above circumstances, I set aside Ext.P8. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider afresh Ext.P6 (which is Ext.P4 in earlier proceedings) with notice to the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to take all available contentions and produce relevant materials before the first respondent. Appropriate orders as above shall be passed within four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. 2. On the basis of the judgment, petitioner submitted WPC No. 31272/05 :2 : Ext.P5 representation and produced certain documents. He claimed that although he did not have the prescribed educational qualifications, he should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, having regard to the fact that several unqualified persons were granted promotion, and therefore, he too should be extended similar treatment. The relevant averments in this behalf are those contained in para 6 and 7, which are extracted below for reference. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Board has given promotion to persons who are not possessing the required minimum qualification as Deputy Director (Administration) one Shri.E.K.Ninan, who passed S.S.L.C. examination and who submitted a letter to the effect that he has received the intimation from the University of Mysore, that he has passed M.A. Sociology Examination was given promotions. A true copy of the letter submitted by Shri.Ninan is produced herewith and marked as Document No.2 One Shri.S.K.Sethuraj a similarly placed incumbent was given promotion as Assistant Director (Auction) in the pay scale of Rs.2200-75- 2800-EB-100-4000. This can be seen from the seniority list of Officers as on 26.2.1987, a true copy whereof is produced herewith and marked as Document No.3. 7. The Board has also granted promotion to certain persons, who are having only matriculation like me by Order No.ADM/Appt(7)/02 dt 24.12.2004 as Assistant Director in the scale of pay of Rs.2200- 75-2800-100-4000 to the following persons: 1. Shri.K.C.Unnikrishnan WPC No. 31272/05 :3 : 2. Shri.K.J.Raphael 3. Smt.K.A.Kunjammu 3. The representation was considered, and by Ext.P6 order, the same has been rejected. In so far as the promotions effected in the Cardamom Board, which has since been amalgamated in the 1st respondent are concerned, it is stated in Ext.P6 that no specific qualifications were prescribed for these posts and hence no relaxation of qualification was granted either. It is stated that the promotions mentioned by the petitioner were effected in 1974 and 1985 and that the said promotions have no relevance in so far as his claim is concerned. 4. As far as promotion effected in the 1st respondent for the post of Assistant Director is concerned, it is stated that after formation of the Spices Board, while the petitioner was in service, no candidate with the basic qualification stipulated in the Recruitment Rules were promoted till the retirement of the petitioner. It is also stated that, in December, 2004, three promotions were effected. However, that is justified on the ground that there were no candidates in the entire cadre of Section Officer, which is the feeder category, with the required WPC No. 31272/05 :4 : qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. It is stated that, it was in the peculiar circumstances, they had to relax the qualifications and effect promotions. 5. It is also stated that the feeder category for the post of Assistant Director is Section Officer and the Section Officer's feeder category is Public Relations Officer. It is stated that in the DPC held in 1988, case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer was considered and as the disciplinary proceedings were pending, sealed cover procedure was adopted. It is stated that sealed cover was opened on 25/7/96 on termination of the disciplinary action and the petitioner was given promotion as Section Officer w.e.f. 1988. It is stated that between 1988 and 31/3/96, there has not been any promotion of Assistant Directors relaxing the qualification. On this basis, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner. 6. As already seen, feeder category post for the post of Assistant Director is Section Officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has been granted promotion as Section Officer w.e.f. 1988. For the post of Assistant Director, petitioner does not have the qualifications prescribed. The only question is, whether in the WPC No. 31272/05 :5 : circumstances, he was entitled to have relaxation of qualification. The claim of the petitioner for relaxation of his qualification is raised on the basis that in certain other cases, such relaxations have been granted and Ext.P7 is one of the proceedings relied on in this behalf. However, from Ext.P6 and the counter affidavit filed, it is obvious that relaxation has been granted by the Cardamom Board at a time when there were no qualifications prescribed and by the Spices Board at a time when there were no qualified Section Officers in the feeder category available for promotion and that too long after the petitioner's retirement. In no other case, have they relaxed the qualification. If that be the situation, an unqualified person like the petitioner cannot, as a matter of routine, claim that essential educational qualification should be relaxed and he should be granted promotion, and his benefits should be reworked on that basis. Although, counsel is justified in his submission that in Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed that the petitioner should be considered in comparison with previous instances of relaxation. But since the instances of relaxation have been satisfactorily explained by the Spices Board and as the claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be one on par WPC No. 31272/05 :6 : with those cases of relaxation, I am not persuaded to think that the view taken in Ext.P6 is erroneous warranting interference of this Court. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp