IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 518 of 2009 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1695/2008 Dated 31/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- P.J.GARVASEES, S/O.JOSEPH, SCIENTIFIC ASISTANT (DOCUMENTS), FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY UNIT, DISTRICT CRIME, RECORD BUREAU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT AND CONVENER, DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) FOR FOENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. LATHA DEVI M.A., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, (DOCUMENTS-CIVIL), FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS R4 BY ADV. SRI. N. SUGATHAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------ R.P. No. 518 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2009 Order Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant is the review petitioner. He filed the writ petition seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Documents) in supersession of the 5th respondent. The sole foundation of the claim of the review petitioner was that he joined the feeder category for training ahead of all others in his batch. The review petitioner and four others including the 5th respondent were advised by the PSC to the feeder category of Scientific Assistant on 24.9.1998. All of them were appointed on 28.11.1998. They joined for training on different dates. The appellant joined first on 3.12.1998. The regular training commenced for all the trainees on 22.3.1999. They completed the training on 21.9.1999. All of them were appointed as probationers on 22.9.1999. They completed probation on 22.9.2001. Among the five appointees, the review petitioner was the junior-most in the advice list and appointment orders. Rule 7 of the Special Rules R.P.No.518 of 2009: - 2 - for the posts of Scientific Assistants of the Forensic Science Laboratory, says that commencement of probation is only on completion of training. The said rule reads as follows: “7. Probation. Every person appointed to the post by methods (i) or (ii) of Rule 2 shall on completion of training be on probation for a total period of 2 years on duty within a continuous period of 3 years”. So, all the appointees commenced regular service pursuant to the appointment on 22.9.1999. The review petitioner says that he gained five years experience before others for the reason that he joined the training before them. The other respondents would point out that though the review petitioner reported earlier, the training commenced only on 22.3.1999 and all of them completed training on 21.9.1999. The review petitioner claims that since he reported for training earlier, it should be taken that his service commenced from that date and therefore, he gained experience from the said date. Therefore, he gained five years experience ahead of others. So, he should have been preferred for promotion as the person who acquired the qualification first. R.P.No.518 of 2009: - 3 - 2. We are of the view that the above ground taken by the review petitioner is manifestly wrong. For the reason that he was able to report at the training place a few days earlier,he cannot claim seniority or he cannot claim that he had acquired experience in the post earlier. Going by the scheme of Rule 27(c) and the first proviso to Rule 28(a)(i) which frown upon the claim of the junior for seniority/promotion on the ground that he joined the feeder post earlier, the above claim has only to be rejected. Even though the ground raised may not a ground for review, we have considered the matter on merits. We are of the view that there is no merit in the ground taken for review. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Sd/- M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE. DK. (True copy)