IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 556 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3743/2008 Dated 08/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------------------- UDAYA KUMAR P., AGED 47, S/O. P.KRISHNA KANT, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SUB TREASURY KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD TALUK-671 121. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURES, DIRECTORATE OF TREASURES, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD-671 123. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD-671 123. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.556 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellant/petitioner is now working as Junior Superintendent in the Sub Treasury Office, Kasaragod. According to him, he is entitled to be promoted and posted as Sub Treasury Officer in the vacancy arising at Manjeswaram or Kasaragod Sub Treasury Office as he is qualified and belonging to linguistic minority. He relied on Rule 9(d) Part-II of Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules. Rule 9(d) reads as follows: “9(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, (or in the Special Rules) if and when a vacancy arises in a post borne on the cadre of a service, class or category for appointment to which knowledge of a particular regional language is necessary in the opinion of the State Government and the person who is entitled to appointment to the post under these rules and the Special Rules does not possess such knowledge, any other person junior to him who possesses such qualification and other qualifications, if any, prescribed under the rules may be appointed to that post; but the person so appointed shall not, by reason only of such appointment, be regarded as a probationer in such service, class or category, nor shall be acquire thereby any preferential right to future appointment to such service, class or category.” W.P(C)No.556/2008 2 This is only an enabling provision for the Government to appoint a particular language knowing person if such knowledge is necessary for doing the duties of that post and it is provided that the person so appointed cannot be regarded as a probationer in that post and such person will not have lien in that post. Even in such appointments, it was held by this court in K.Ramakrishnan v. The State of Kerala and another (ILR 1992(1) Kerala 737) that Government is not to decide working knowledge of an officer in the language except by a pass in the Minority Language Test conducted by Public Service Commission. In any event, this is only an enabling provision and Government cannot be compelled to promote the petitioner merely because he knew Kannada and he should be appointed overtaking the seniority of others. We see no ground to differ from the reasons because given by the learned single Judge. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks