IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21100 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K. KUNJUMOHAMMAD, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RETIRED), MARATHUKUNNU, P.O. ENKAKAD, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 21100 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aged 83 and retired from the Land Revenue Department as Deputy Collector in the year 1981. He was promoted as Deputy Collector as per order dated 12.5.1980. Petitioner refers to the Special Rules for the Kerala Land Revenue published as per SRO 552/80. The Special Rules had superseded the earlier Special Rules which had been brought into force with effect from 25.5.1974. According to the petitioner, he had acquired requisite qualifications for being promoted as Tahasildar earlier. Going by the Special Rules, he submits that he had acquired Criminal Judicial Test as early as in the year 1960 and had also other qualifications as evidenced by Exhibits P2 and P3. Thus, petitioner should have been considered for appointment as Thasildar, it is contended. It is further contended that on account of the wrong interpretation of Rule 13A, 13AA and 13AB of the General W.P ( C) No. 21100 of 2008 2 Rules in Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, several persons who were granted promotion as Tahasildars superseding the petitioner. Such persons were granted exemption from the basic qualification. 2. A Division Bench of this Court had in Krishnakumar C.K. Vs. Chathan[2007(1) ILR 572] held that no one is entitled to exemption from the Criminal Judicial Test, which should be treated as basic qualification and obligatory for appointment to the post of Tahasildar. Petitioner submits that therefore the promotion given to several persons in spite of the fact that they had not passed the Criminal Judicial Test was illegal. In the circumstances, according to the petitioner, denial of the appointment to the post of Tahasildar which should have been done in the year 1960 was itself illegal. Petitioner refers to Exhibit P5 which is a provisional seniority list of Deputy Collectors as on 22.7.1995. Petitioner submits that since he had retired from service in the year 1981, copy of the provisional list was not forwarded to him. Therefore, he was not aware of Exhibit P5. In the circumstances, he was not able to W.P ( C) No. 21100 of 2008 3 submit his objections to Exhibit-P5 provisional seniority list. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioner sought to be highlighted is he should have been promoted in the year 1960. In other words, he has a grievance as regards the promotion given to some of his juniors in the year 1980 and 1981. Petitioner support his claim in this regard on the basis of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court pronounced in the year 2007. Petitioner has submitted that Exhibit P5 representation before the Government with a request that promotion to the post of Tahasildar and Deputy Collector may be reviewed and he may be given an appropriate place from an earlier date. In my view, the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated. Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Collector in the year 1980 and he retired from service in the year 1981. Assuming that certain promotions effected in 1980 and earlier was irregular in the sense that persons who did not pass the obligatory Criminal Judicial Test were also promoted and resultantly the petitioner was superseded, it is not open to the petitioner to agitate his claim at this distance of time. W.P ( C) No. 21100 of 2008 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P5 seniority list was not forwarded to him and therefore he was not aware of the same. Obviously, Exhibit P4 was issued on 9.11.1995 and it must have been circulated among the persons concerned. Petitioner cannot seek to agitate his claim on the basis of the alleged ignorance of Exhibit P5 at this distance of time. I am not inclined to issue any directions in this matter. But it is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to pursue Exhibit P6 if it is otherwise permissible. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 21100 of 2008 5