IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 23RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 33028 of 2004(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.K.JOHNY, S/O.LATE V.O.KURIAKOSE, AGED 43 YEARS, U.D.TYPIST, O/O DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, RESIDING PERMANENTLY AT VEEPPANATT HOUSE, ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683 553. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE LAND REVENUE COMMISSINERATE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSIUM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DEPUTY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 33028 of 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 301/68/PD DATED 26.9.68 ISSUED FOR THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.4.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.7.04 IN W.P.(C). 21610/2004 (V) ON THE FILES OF THE HONOURABLE COURT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.(N)2-21887/04 DATED 28.7.04 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 6.8.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF the ORDER NO.L.R.(N2) 387888/04 DATED 19.10.04 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).33028/2004 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner entered service in the Revenue Department as U.D.Typist with effect from 15.2.1996. He had earlier served in the Scheduled Caste Development Department. On the strength of Ext.P2 Government Order, which provides a category change for U.D.Typists to U.D.Clerk/Assistant Grade-I, petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the second respondent. This ultimately resulted in Ext.P7 order passed by the third respondent pointing out that the petitioner will complete ten years of service as Typist in the Revenue Department only on 14.2.2006 and his plea for a category change to the post of U.D.Clerk can be considered only then. Ext.P7 has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. The facility given for a category change for U.D.Typists and Stenographers is governed by Ext.P2 Government Order dated 26.9.1968. Ten years of service as requisite eligibility for appointment as W.P.(C).33028/2004 2 U.D.Clerk/Assistant Grade-I by category change, is laid down in Ext.P2. Apparently, a clarification was sought for from the Government as to whether ten years of service mentioned in Ext.P2 contemplates service in the same department. The Government clarified in the affirmative. The stand taken by the Government in this regard cannot be considered as either illegal or irregular. Obviously when an option is given for a category change, it is open to the Government to prescribe the conditions therefor. There was an ambiguity in Ext.P2 and the same was clarified by the Government on 7.12.2004. I also note that there is no challenge to either Ext.P2 or subsequent clarification given by the Government. 3. Petitioner contends that his earlier service in Scheduled Caste Development Department must also be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning ten years of service which is necessary for seeking a category change. This stand does not seem to be correct in the W.P.(C).33028/2004 3 light of Ext.P2 nor do I find any support for the stand in any statutory rule or Government order. The fact that prior service in another Government department is taken note of for the purpose of protecting the petitioner’s pay need not necessarily result in a situation where the said service should be taken into account for determining the requisite ten years of service as contemplated by Ext.P2. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence the same is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs