IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2353 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN OA.318/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. M.B.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI,LOWER DIVISION CLERK,EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 017. 2. C.PRADEEPAN,LOWER DIVISION CLERK, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 017. 3. P.K.SASI,LOWER DIVISION CLERK, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI 682 017. BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF LABOUR,NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,14,BHIKHAJI GAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI. 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDEND FUND COMMISSIONER(I),KERALA REGION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R2-3 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R2-3 MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(CAT) NO.2353/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF O.A.NO.318/08 WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A10 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P2 : COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20/10/2009 IN O.A.NO.318/08. P3 : COPY OF MODIFIED ORDER OF REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (HRM) DATED 12/06/2006. P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/11/2009 IN O.A.NO.318/08 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. P5 : COPY OF RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT. P6 : COPY OF PAY AND PAY FIXATION STATEMENTS ISSUED BY COMPETENT AUTHORITY WITH EFFECT FROM 01/01/2006. P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 11/03/2010. P8 : COPY OF MEMO DATED 14/06/2010. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... OP(CAT) No.2353 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T Gopinathan, J. The petitioners are the applicants in O.A.No.318/2008 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. They are working as Lower Division Clerks (LDC) under the 2nd respondent with effect from 24/09/1996, 24/07/1995 & 03/09/2003 respectively. As per the Recruitment Rules, the next post of promotion of LDC is that of UDC, which was redesignated as Social Security Assistant (SSA). The Recruitment Rules mandate that to qualify for promotion as SSA, LDC has to pass computer skill test. Though the petitioners appeared for the computer skill test, they did not qualify, vide Annexure A9(a) result. Consequently, the petitioners were not promoted. Their representations, vide Annexures A5 to A7, requesting to promote them as SSAs were not considered. With this plea they approached the OP(CAT) No.2353/2011 2 Tribunal seeking a direction to respondents 2 & 3 to absorb or promote by reckoning the applicants as SSA with retrospective effect from the date of publication of Annexure A9(a) result. Alternatively, it was prayed to issue direction to the 2nd respondent to dispose of Annexure A5 to A7 representations. 2. The Tribunal below after considering the objections raised by the respondents, entered into a finding that the Recruitment Rules mandate passing of computer skill test and the petitioners were not at qualified in the computer skill test, and therefore they have no legal right to get promoted as SSAs. Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, as against which order, this OP(CAT) has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. We have heard Shri.Vellayani Sundara Raju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. It is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules mandate passing of computer skill test for promotion as SSA OP(CAT) No.2353/2011 3 and that the petitioners were not qualified in the computer skill test. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the test was conducted only for 10 minutes and that the word speed is 5000 words/hour, and therefore Annexure A9(a) result is vitiated. On the other hand, the respondents would contend that there was proper test and out of the 5 candidates appeared for the test, one passed. Having heard either side and going through Annexure A9(a) result, prima facie, we do not find any merit in the submission that the test was conducted within 10 minutes or that the test was an eye-wash. Even if it is assessed that test was only for 10 minutes, that is also not a reason to ignore Annexure A9(a) because from the speed in 10 minutes, the speed in an hour can be easily computed. Therefore, challenge against Annexure A9(a) is devoid of merit. 5. Learned counsel had, further giving reliance to Ext.P3, submitted that there was an administrative order to reckon the LDCs who have not qualified the computer skill test OP(CAT) No.2353/2011 4 against the sanctioned posts of SSA. The relevant portion of Ext.P3 reads as follows:- “It may also be ensured that the Lower Division Clerks who have not qualified the Computer skill test for promotion to the post of SSA will be reckoned against the Sanctioned strength of Social Security Assistant cadre of the respective region. Further, 576 posts of LDC already intimated region wise, will only be utilized/filled up for promotion of Group 'D' employees in future.” Going by the above, we find that it is only an instruction to the Department to reckon LDCs who have not qualified the computer skill test against the sanctioned strength of SSA cadre of the respective region for the purpose of counting posts for promotion of Group D employees. No doubt, it is not a communication to promote LDCs, who had not passed the skill test and to give them monetary benefits of promotion. It is only a departmental instruction for filling up the clerical cadres. Therefore, we find that Ext.P3 would not enure to the benefit of the petitioners. 6. It was further argued that the petitioners have been OP(CAT) No.2353/2011 5 discharging their duties as SSAs and Senior SSAs and therefore they are entitled to get all benefits eligible to SSA and Senior SSA. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is change of nature of duties from LDC to SSA. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that all are doing clerical work and there is no change of duty at all. We find merit in the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel because there is nothing on record to come to a conclusion that the LDCs and SSAs are discharging different duties. On the other hand, they are doing only clerical work. Therefore, we find no merit in the submission that the petitioners are entitled to salary and other benefits which SSAs and Senior SSAs are entitled to. Their claim for promotion without passing the computer skill test is against the Rules and no way entertainable through the Tribunal or this Court. The Tribunal below had duly considered the plea of the petitioners and rightly rejected it. There is no error or impropriety or illegality in the order impugned to be rectified OP(CAT) No.2353/2011 6 by this Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this OP(CAT) is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. No costs. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jg