IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2011 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 359 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2182/2011 Dated 21/01/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ----------------------------------- GEETHAKUMARY.S., AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOTTARAKKARA, KRISHI BHAVAN, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE WPC ------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 359 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, CJ. The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P(C).No.2182 of 2011 is the appellant, who is aggrieved by the judgment in the above Writ Petition dated 21.1.2011. 2. The appellant is an employee of the State of Kerala, working as Agricultural Officer. She was appointed to the said post on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission dated 1.10.1998. At that point of time, the appellant was pursuing her studies in M.Sc. (Agriculture). Therefore, the appellant sought for enlargement of the joining time to enable her to complete the course which was pursuing. The request of the appellant was accepted by the State of Kerala and eventually the appelant joined in service on 19.4.1989. 3. It appears that in the year 1992, a seniority list of the Agricultural Officers was prepared and published. Complaining that the appellant's name was shown wrongly as junior to some of the other members in the service, the appellant made a WA.359/11 2 representation before the second respondent on 16.12.2008. Complaining that no appropriate action was taken on the said representation, the appellant had earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P(C).No.1906 of 2009, which was disposed of by judgment dated 19.1.2009 directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Subsequently, as the second respondent rejected the representation, the appellant made a further representation on 19.9.2009 before the first respondent and thereafter once again the appellant approached this Court by way of filing another Writ Petition, WP(C).No.29304 of 2009. Once again the said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction as follows: “1st respondent shall consider Exhibit P7, hear the petitioner and take a decision thereon, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the judgment shall be produced before the 1st respondent.” 4. Thereafter the Government passed order No.G.O.(Rt). No.226/10/AD dated 9.2.2010 rejecting the claim of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court again by way of filing W.P(C).No.2182 of 2011. The same was dismissed by the WA.359/11 3 judgment under appeal. Hence the appeal. Rejecting the Writ Petition the learned Judge held at paragraph 3 of the judgment as follows: “3. The petitioner is liable to fall in this writ petition for more than one reason. First is that in Ext.P1 order is dated 7.7.1989 granting the petitioner extension of time to join duty, it is specifically stated as follows: “i. The seniority of the candidate in the cadre of Agricultural Officer Grade II will be reckoned with reference to the date of joining duty in the Department as laid down in the proviso to Rule 27(c) of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.” The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same at any time, not even in this writ petition. Secondly, on merits also, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for under Rule 27(c) of the KS&SSR, the relevant portion of which reads thus: “27. Seniority.-....... (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (a) and (b) above, the seniority of a person appointed to a class, category or grade in a service on the advice of the Commission shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of first effective advice made for his appointment to such class, category or grade and when two or more persons are included in the same list of candidates advised, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the order in which their names are arranged in the advice list. Provided that the seniority of candidates who have been granted extension of time to join duty beyond three months from the date of the appointment order, except those who are WA.359/11 4 undergoing courses of study or training which are prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which they are advised for appointment, shall be determined by the date of their joining duty. xxx xxx xxx Going by the same, it is clear that a person who has been granted extension of time to join duty beyond 3 months from the date of appointment order, is entitled to seniority only from the date of his/her joining duty unless the extension of time to join duty was for the purpose of undergoing a course of study or training which is prescribed as essential qualification for the post to which the person is advised for appointment. Here the petitioner was advised for appointment to the post of Agricultural Officer. If the post graduation for completing which the petitioner obtained extension of time for joining duty was a qualification prescribed for the post of Agricultural Officer, the petitioner would not even have been considered for selection at all. Therefore, the condition prescribed in the proviso is not satisfied in the case of the petitioner for an order in favour of the petitioner.” 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge, Rule 27 of the KS&SSR is the relevant Rule dealing with the situation. Rule 27(c) of the KS&SSR prescribes that seniority of a person “appointed to a class, category or grade in a service”, is to be determined by the date of first effective advice made for appointment to such post. It further stipulates that when more than one person is WA.359/11 5 included in the list advising the candidates, their relative seniority shall be fixed according to the rank in which their names are arranged in the advise list. However, the proviso visualise a situation where the candidates advised by the Public Service Commission do not join immediately for some reason and in such cases the proviso prescribes where the candidates join within a period of three months from the date of advice, their seniority remains unaltered and continue to be the same as in the advise list of the Public Service Commission. But in the case of those candidates joining later than three months, their seniority shall be reckoned from the date of their actual joining of the duty. But, such a prescription is subject to a further qualification that such a delayed reporting to the duty is consequent upon the fact that the candidate was undergoing some course or training, which is prescribed to be an essential qualification for the post. 6. Admittedly, M.Sc. (Agriculture) is not a qualification which is prescribed to be essential to the post of Agricultural Officer. If the appellant pursue the course either because of leave for higher learning or for any other reason, she cannot complain that she should also have the benefit of seniority notwithstanding the WA.359/11 6 fact that she joined much later than the period of joining time permitted under the relevant rules. We do not see any merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is, therefore dismissed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs