IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 OP.No. 31280 of 2000(W) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S. PADMAKUMARI AMMA, W/O. V. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 54 YEARS, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. P.S. PADMAVATHY AMMA, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K. AMBUJAKSHY, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. SMT. P.R. PUSHPA, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. 5. SMT. S. MERCY, FORMERLY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM (NOW RESIDING AT ' SHEENJA', T.C.XI/972, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM.) ADV. SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN FOR R5 SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: O.P. NO. 31280/2000. ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 21-10-2000. EXT.P2 COMMUNICATION OF R1 DT. 10-8-2000. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O. P No. 31280 of 2000 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 25th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners were Technical Assistants in the Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram. They are aggrieved by the higher grade ratio promotion given to respondents 4 and 5 in the cadre of Technical Assistants on the ground that in view of Government Orders on the subject, only qualified hands possessing the qualifications prescribed for the post would be entitled to scales of pay on regular promotion post/time bound grades as per ratio grade promotion prescribed by the Pay Revision Orders. According to the petitioners , for the post of Technical Assistant, one of the qualifications prescribed is a pass in Account Test which the respondents 4 and 5 do not possess. The petitioner further contends that in view of the decision in Sarojini Amma v. State of Kerala, 2002 (3) KLT 573, when pass in Account Test is prescribed as one of the essential qualifications for recruitment or promotion, then, notwithstanding the exemption under Rule 13B of the KS and SSR, those who do not possess the Account test qualification prescribed are not entitled to grade promotion in the scale of regular promotion post. The promotion given to respondents 4 and 5 in the 20% ratio fixed for higher grades in the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Director is therefore invalid and unsustainable, is the contention raised. The petitioners would contend that once ratio promotion given to respondents 4 and 5 are cancelled, the petitioner would be entitled to be considered in their place for the ratio promotion. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “(a) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P-1 and quash the original of the same to the extent it orders ratio Higher Grade to the 4th and 5th respondents dehors qualifications. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to grant ratio Higher O.P.No. 31280/2000. -: 2 :- Grade to the petitioners who are qualified hands.” 2. No doubt, in the decision of Sarojini Amma's case, this Court has held that despite exemption under Rule 13B, when pass in Account Test is a specific qualification prescribed for a post, without obtaining that qualification, promotion cannot be given to persons who do not have the qualification of Account Test prescribed. Here, the issue involved is promotion given to respondents 4 and 5 in the higher grade scale of pay applicable to Assistant Directors as per Pay Revision Orders. The petitioners themselves have quoted the relevant portion in paragraph 10 (vii) of G.O (P) No. 480/89/Fin. dated 1-11-1989 as follows: “While assigning higher grades, only qualified hands i.e. those possessing the qualifications prescribed for the promotion post, will get the scales of pay of regular promotion post/time bound grades mentioned above.” Going by the same, what we are to look into is whether respondents 4 and 5 had the qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Assistant Director so as to enable them to get ratio promotion to the scale of pay applicable to Assistant Directors. The contention in the original petition is that they do not possess the qualification prescribed for Technical Assistants. They do not state as to what are the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Directors, which are the relevant qualifications and as to whether pass in Account Test is also a prescribed qualification for that post. Of course, they have raised a contention that the 4th respondent's probation had not been declared in the category of Technical Assistant and therefore, the 4th respondent is not qualified for the ratio promotion. But, they do not categorically state that respondents 4 and 5 do not possess qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Director. Admittedly, the petitioners as well as respondents 4 and 5 have long retired from service. In the above O.P.No. 31280/2000. -: 3 :- circumstances, in view of the lack of pleadings of the petitioners, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/