IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 WA.No. 479 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26269/2005 Dated 08/08/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ C.R.VIJAYAN, S/O.RAMAN PILLA FOREMAN WORKSHOP, GOVERNMENT PRESS MANNUMTHALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (H) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PRINTING GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.KRISHNAN, CHIEF WORKSHOP FOREMAN GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS FOR R1 AND R2 ADV.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.479 OF 2008 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant/Petitioner is working as a Foreman (workshop) in the Government Press. For promotion to the post of Foreman, 1:1 ratio between the I.T.I holders and Diploma holders are to be followed as decided by the Full Bench of this Court in Ext.P17 judgment. It is the contention of the appellant that the 3rd respondent is only an I.T.I holder and going by the ratio, appellant should have been promoted earlier to the post of Foreman as he is senior. 1:1 ratio is fixed for the promotion to the post of Foreman. When the 3rd respondent, who was working as a senior mechanic in 1979 was promoted as Foreman (workshop) in November 1997, appellant was working only as a mechanic, that is two levels below the position of the 3rd respondent. At the time of promotion of the 3rd respondent, appellant was only a W.A.479/08 2 mechanic, from there he has to be promoted to senior mechanic and then to Foreman and since the 3rd respondent was a senior mechanic in 1979, he was promoted as Foreman in 1997. Therefore promotion of the 3rd respondent as Foreman in 1997 cannot be challenged by the appellant and 3rd respondent is senior in the category of Foreman. It is true that the appellant has obtained Diploma in 1994. Even though he was posted in the workshop, since he has passed Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Diploma has to be counted as his qualification from 1994 onwards. He cannot be treated as a mere I.T.I. holder merely because his Diploma is in Electrical Engineering. Special rules only requires Diploma in Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering or Engineering in Electronics. Therefore, appellant should be treated as a Diploma holder for all purposes after 1994. For claiming promotion to the post of senior Foreman from the level of Foreman, no ratio is prescribed and seniority in the post of Foreman has to be considered. In the above circumstances, the promotion of the 3rd respondent as senior Foreman cannot be questioned. We agree with the views of W.A.479/08 3 the learned Single Judge in that regard and hence this appeal is dismissed. We also note that the 3rd respondent is reaching the age of superannuation. But we make it clear that because appellant has got Diploma in Electrical Engineering, he cannot be treated as merely an I.T.I holder and he should be treated as Diploma holder from 1994 onwards and he is entitled to get benefits as a Diploma holder though he cannot question the promotion of the 3rd respondent as Senior Foreman in 1998. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 14th October, 2008