IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 4172 of 2003(V) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJENDRAN. V., ATTENDER, LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, BOTANICAL GARDEN, KAVARATTI. BY ADV. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.M.R.ANISON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., G 406, PANAMBILLI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE COMPANY SECRETARY/GENERAL MANAGER LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., G 406, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036. 3. K. BALAN, GODOWN KEEPER, LAKSHADWEEP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., CHALAPPURAM, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.SAJI VARGHESE SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1-2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 4172/2003. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DT. 28-11-1989. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 24-4-90. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 23-3-02. EXT.P4 RELEVANT PAGES OF SPECIAL RULES. EXT.P5 REPRESENTATION DT. MARCH, 2001. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION DT. 29-3-01. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 28-8-99. EXT.P8 NOTIFICATION DT. 30-11-2002. EXT.P9 REQUISITION DT. 7-11-2001. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 20-8-1992. EXT.P11 PROCEEDINGS OF R1. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) ORDER DT. 26-2-2003. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 4172 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as an attender on contract basis in the Fisheries Department of Lakshadweep Administration for one year in a project post. That project was taken over by the Lakshadweep Settlement Corporation. The petitioner was transferred to that Corporation along with others on 24-4-1990 in the same post and in the same scale of pay. The petitioner's service was later regularised with effect from 20-8-1992. However, for 10 long years, he was working without any increase in emoluments or any promotion. After 10 years, by Ext. P3 he was given a step up in the scale of pay. According to the petitioner, as per Ext. P4 rules adopted by the Corporation, 5 years' service in the feeder category is the minimum period of service prescribed for promotion. However, as per Ext. P4 rules, 25% vacancies have been set apart up to Category I, 33 ½% up to Category II and in other cases, up to 50%, for being filled up by promotion from suitable employees. The petitioner contends that in spite of the same, the petitioner has not been given any promotion, despite vacancies having arisen in higher posts. At the same time, the Corporation has been recruiting persons to higher posts by direct recruitment without promoting the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of revision of pay as per the 5th Pay Commission Report. The petitioner further raises a grievance that the 3rd respondent has been appointed as a godown keeper by direct recruitment which is a promotion post for attender, while the petitioner was still stagnating as attender and he is drawing a higher salary than the petitioner although the petitioner was subsequently promoted as godown in charge. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is candidly admitted that no recruitment rules have been framed for O.P. 4172/2003. -: 2 :- appointments and promotion to various posts in the Corporation although draft rules were once framed. But, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in so far as the prayers are not allowable. According to counsel for the Corporation, this Court cannot direct that the petitioner be promoted to a higher post and cannot direct filling up the post of Assistant, Accounts Assistant and Office Assistant against the norms prescribed by the Corporation. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I am surprised that after admitting in the counter affidavit filed in 2004 that the Corporation, which is a Government owned Corporation, have not yet framed rules, even today the situation remains the same. I am of opinion that no Government owned Corporation shall function like that. Every such organisation should mandatorily have recruitment rules, failing which it would lead to arbitrariness, discrimination and nepotism in the matter of appointments and promotion. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been stagnating in the post of attender for 10 long years at least. It is also not disputed before me that while the petitioner was still working as an attender, the 3rd respondent had been directly appointed as a godown keeper in a higher scale of pay. That is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. When Ext. P4 rules adopted by the Corporation themselves made provision for reservation of 50% of the vacancies available to be filled up by promotion, they have been making appointments to all vacancies by direct recruitment, which is clear from the fact that the 3rd respondent has been directly appointed as godown keeper when the petitioner was still working as attender. I am of opinion that such practice of respondents 1 and 2 should be strongly condemned. In the above circumstances, the original petition is disposed of with the following directions: O.P. 4172/2003. -: 3 :- Respondents 1 and 2 shall not make any further appointments or promotions without framing appropriate recruitment rules. In any event, such rules shall be framed within a period of four months from today. In the next arising vacancy above that of godown-in-charge, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion. The petitioner's pay shall be stepped up on par with that of the 3rd respondent and the petitioner shall be considered as senior to the 3rd respondent for all purposes in the cadre they are presently working. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/