IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2959 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PREMAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.LALITHABAI AMMA, SREE DHANYA, OPPOSITE TO VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICE, PARASUVAIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2959 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Senior Superintendent in the service of the Department of Agriculture of the Government of Kerala. When the petitioner was offered regular promotion as Administrative Assistant she relinquished that promotion. Thereafter, she was granted ratio promotion to the intermediary post of Senior Superintendent Higher Grade and she retired from service on 31.03.2010. By Exts. P9 & P10 the ratio promotion has been cancelled on the ground that she relinquished regular promotion. According to the petitioner, Exts.P9 and P10 have been passed without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to quash Exts.P9 and P10 to the extent concerning petitioner.” It is settled law that the violation of principles of W.P.(C)No. 2959 of 2011 -2- natural justice cannot automatically lead to the orders being totally unsustainable for that reason alone. It depends on whether the same results in prejudice to the person concerned. Here, I am of the opinion that, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on account of want of notice or hearing to the petitioner. The Government has by Ext.P7 clarified Clause 5 (1) (b) (12) of Ext.P2 which is the relevant provision in the pay revision order in respect of higher grade promotion and ratio promotion, thus: “Time bound higher grade promotion will not be given to those who relinquished or relinquish regular promotion. This is applicable to ratio promotion also.” That provision does not give room for any doubt whatsoever for the legal position that those who relinquished regular promotion are not eligible for time bound higher grade promotion as well as ratio promotion. Here, admittedly, the petitioner relinquished regular promotion. Therefore, the only result is that the petitioner is not eligible for not only higher grade but also ratio promotion. That has only been done by Exts.P9 & P10. W.P.(C)No. 2959 of 2011 -3- Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge against Exts.P9 & P10. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/