IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 4915 of 2000(I) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. JOSE J.J., WORKING AS GROUNDMAN, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. C.V.JOY, WORKING AS GROUNDMAN/MARKER, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. T.O.PAULSON, WORKING AS GROUNDMAN/MARKER, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. M.K.VENU, WORKING AS GROUNDMAN/MARKER, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. REGISTRAR, CALICUT UNIVERSITY, THENJIPALAM, CALICUT – 673 635. 5. CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. O.P.NO. 4915/2000 6. K.P.VARGHESE, WORKING AS LABORATORY ASSISTANT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 7. SHAJU VARGHESE, WORKING AS LABORATORY ASSISTANT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 8. O.K.THOMAS, WORKING AS SPECIMEN COLLECTOR, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 9. V.A.ANTO, WORKING AS LABORATORY ASSISTANT, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. 10. BILTON PAULY T., WORKING AS MECHANIC, CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 4915/2000 ORDER ON CMP NOS. 8029/2000, 8115/2000 & 31984/2000 IN O.P.NO. 4915/2000 DISMISSESD. 12/03/2008 SD/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 & P2 : COPIES OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/01/95 APPROVING THE APPOINTMNET AND STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING THE SAME. P3 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ACCOMPANYING THE ORDER APPROVING THE APPOINTMENT. P4 : COPY OF THE CATEGORY WISE SENIORITY LIST OF NON TEACHING STAFF PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE AS ON 01/12/1997. P5, P6, P7 & P8 : COPIES OF THE PROMOTION ORDERS ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT REGARDING PROMOTIONS OF RESPONDENTS 6 TO 7 AND 10. P9 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/08/1997. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R7(a) : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.210/56/99 NTS DATED 02/08/1999. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------- O.P. No. 4915 of 2000 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are working in the 5th respondent college as Groundman/Marker. They have been appointed on various dates in the years 1990, 1991 and 1995. As per Exts.P1 & P2 their appointments have been approved also. Respondents 6 to 10 have also entered service in various posts included in the last grade category. 2. The grievance of the petitioners voiced in the original petition is that the petitioners are stagnating in the respective posts and they are deprived of any chance for promotion as the avenues of promotion have not been provided for them. It is pointed out that, even persons, who had joined the last grade service after the dates of entry of petitioners, have obtained promotion whereas the petitioners are languishing in the entry cadre. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 & 10 submitted that the posts of Groundman/Marker have not been included in the category of last grade service and they belong to a O.P.NO. 4915/2000 -2- separate service in the Physical Education Department, which is purely a vacation department. They have relied upon the proceedings dated 06/09/1997 of the Deputy Director of Education in support of the above contention. 4. The Government has also filed a counter affidavit. 5. The sum and substance of the contention taken is that categories which are included in the last grade service do not include the post of Groundman/Marker and therefore they are not entitled for promotion. 6. It is true that the concerned University Statute does not provide for any particular provision for promotion of Groundman/Marker to various posts like Lab Assistants etc. But promotions of other non-teaching staff are covered by the statute stipulated by the concerned University and the posts of the petitioners are out side those provisions. But still the facts show that they are denied any scope for promotion because of the non- inclusion of the said post among the last grade service. Going by the decisions of the Apex Court the denial of promotion / not providing of any avenues of promotion resulting in stagnation in an entry cadre results in discrimination. But in the absence of any O.P.NO. 4915/2000 -3- statutory provision or provisions in the First Statute this Court will not be justified in issuing a direction to include the petitioners also in the last grade service. It is up to the University and other bodies entrusted with the task of framing the First Statute to remedy the situation. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, prayed for an opportunity to ventilate their grievance in the form of a representation to the appropriate authority, namely the 4th respondent. If the petitioners file an appropriate representation to the 4th respondent within a period of six weeks from today, the same will be considered by the appropriate authority of the University and appropriate action as provided by law will be taken in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) jg