IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2008 / 30TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21573 of 2008(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING , NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) MANDI HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 3. THE STATION DIRECTOR, PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) CALICUT - 673 001. 4. THE STATION DIRECTOR, PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: ------------- USHA VIJAYAKUMAR, INSTRUMENTALIST (GOTTUVADAYAM), ALL INDIA RADIO, CALICUT, RESIDING AT USHUS, 1/4562 -B BILATHIKULAM P.O., ERANHIPALAM, CALICUT 673 006. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21573 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.567/2006. The respondent herein was the applicant in that Original Application. The applicant was an Instrumentalist claiming the benefit of Annexure-A4 Assured Career Progression scheme. Her claim was rejected by Annexure-A8 relying on Annexure-A9 office memorandum. Therefore, challenging those orders and also seeking a direction to give her the benefit of Annexure-A4 Assured Career Progression Scheme, Ext.P1, Original Application was filed. The respondents, who are the writ petitioners, resisted the application by filing Ext.P2 reply statement. According to them, the petitioner should upgrade her skill and clear MAB test and then only, she is eligible to be considered for promotion. Though she appeared for the said test she failed to clear the test. Therefore, she is ineligible for promotion, it is submitted. W.P.(C) No.21573/2008 2 2. But, the applicant contended that the post held by her is an isolated post and therefore, it is unnecessary to acquire any additional qualification in terms of the ACP scheme for getting upgradation. The said contention was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The C.A.T. referred to the clarification regarding isolated post for the purpose of the ACP, which is extracted in paragraph 15 of Ext.P3 impugned order of the C.A.T. The said clarification reads as follows: “isolated post is a stand alone post, having neither feeder grade nor promotional grade. As such a post having no promotional grade but having a feeder grade and vice versa shall not be treated as isolated post for the purpose of ACPs.” 3. We notice that in the reply statement or in the writ petition, the petitioners have not anywhere stated that as per the recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Instrumentalist such and such posts are the feeder categories. They have also failed to plead that Instrumentalist is a feeder category for promotion to such and such posts. In the absence of any plea to W.P.(C) No.21573/2008 3 that effect, we find nothing wrong with Ext.P3 judgment, wherein it is held that the post held by the petitioner is an isolated post and, therefore, she is entitled to get promotion without clearing MAB test. Smt.Soumini James, who appeared for Assistant Solicitor General, before us were also not able to show us that the post held by the petitioner is not an isolated post, with reference to the above said clarification issued by the Department Of Personnel and Training explaining what is an isolated post. In view of the above position, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE) ps