IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 OP.No. 10819 of 2001(K) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST, PROJECT OFFICE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 20. BY ADVS. MR. S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP.BY ITS MEMBER, SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOOD JUNCTION, PATTOM PALACE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. 3. V.T.SAJIMON, ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL, SCIENTIST, CENTRAL LABORATORY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 20. ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C. FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.10819/2001 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/E1/18208/90 DT. 11.10.99 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/E1/18208/90 DT. 31.3.97 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/E1/18208/90 DT. 28.2.01 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/E1/18208/90 DT. 1.4.2000 OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. P6:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.PCB/E1/15738/86 DT. 18.3.2000 PUBLISHED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE TSS S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 10819 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T In this original petition the petitioner challenges the promotion of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Environmental Scientist, by Ext.P1 order, as also Ext.P4 order whereby, the petitioner's representation challenging the promotion of the 3rd respondent by Ext.P1 order has been rejected. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board as Junior Scientific Assistant on 21.4.1983. He was promoted as Senior Scientific Assistant and, thereafter as Assistant Scientist on 10.2.1988. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Environmental Scientist on 10.5.2000. The 3rd respondent was directly recruited through special recruitment of the PSC as Assistant Scientist on 29.6.1994. Although, according to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent was not qualified for appointment to the post of Assistant Scientist and also was junior to the petitioner in the cadre of Assistant Scientist, the 3rd respondent was given promotion as Assistant Environmental Scientist on 9.10.1999 in preference to the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 and P4 orders and seeking the following reliefs: “i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P1 and P4 and o.p.10819/2001 2 quash them. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner as senior to the 3rd respondent in the category of Assistant Environmental Scientist and give him all consequential service benefits.” 3. The contentions of the petitioner are two fold. The first is that the qualifications prescribed for Assistant Scientist were M.Sc. in Chemistry/Bio-Chemistry/Physical Chemistry/Marine Biology or Aquatic Biology with one year experience in analytical work. The petitioner would contend that the 3rd respondent had the qualification of only M.Sc. in Applied Chemistry and not M.Sc. in Chemistry and, therefore, he is not even qualified to be posted as Assistant Scientist. Consequently, his promotion as Assistant Environmental Scientist is also illegal, is the contention raised by the petitioner. The second contention is that the petitioner having been promoted as Assistant Scientist on 10.2.1988 and the 3rd respondent having been recruited as Assistant Scientist only on 29.6.1994, the petitioner was senior to the 3rd respondent in the cadre of Assistant Scientists and therefore, the promotion of the 3rd respondent in preference to the petitioner is clearly against the seniority and, is therefore, unsustainable. 4. The contention of respondents 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit is that the Masters Degree in Applied Chemistry is equivalent to Masters Degree in Chemistry. They would submit that in this regard o.p.10819/2001 3 the Head of Department of Chemistry, University of Kerala, has reported that following branches of M.Sc. Chemistry are equivalent for all purposes: M.Sc. Chemistry M.Sc. Analytical Chemistry M.Sc. Applied Chemistry M.Sc. Polymer Chemistry Physical Chemistry Inorganic Chemistry Organic Chemistry. 5. Regarding the second contention, the reply of respondents 1 and 2 is that the promotion of the petitioner as Assistant Scientist is only provisional whereas the recruitment of the 3rd respondent directly was to a regular post. It is also submitted that since the appointment of the 3rd respondent was for filling up the deficiency of Scheduled Caste candidates in service, and when the 3rd respondent was appointed regularly, the petitioner was only provisionally promoted, the petitioner cannot claim seniority over the 3rd respondent. 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 7. As regards the first contention of the petitioner, in so far as the academicians well-versed in the subject have opined that M.Sc. Applied Chemistry is equivalent to M.Sc. Chemistry, this Court cannot sit in appeal over that expert opinion. Even otherwise, unlike in the o.p.10819/2001 4 case of Polymer Chemistry, Physical Chemistry etc., Applied Chemistry is Chemistry itself and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the respondents that M.Sc. Applied Chemistry is equivalent to M.Sc. in Chemistry. In any event, in so far as the petitioner has not challenged the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Scientist for which alone the qualifications were relevant, I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner. Further, the post of Assistant Environmental Scientist is a promotion post from the post of Assistant Scientist. The 3rd respondent does have the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Environmental Scientist as per the special rules, which is not disputed. 8. Regarding the second contention, in the reply affidavit the petitioner himself admits that his promotion has been provisional. He has not been able to satisfy me that his provisional promotion was regularised with effect from an anterior date to the regular appointment of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Scientist. Without proving with adequate materials that the petitioner's provisional promotion as Assistant Scientist had been regularised with effect from an anterior date to the direct appointment of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner cannot succeed in that contention. In any event, I find that the promotion of the 3rd respondent is as per recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and the petitioner is unable to tell o.p.10819/2001 5 me whether the method of appointment is by selection in which case it can also be that the Departmental Promotion Committee found the 3rd respondent more meritorious than the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to bring-forth any material to prove all these aspects. In the above circumstances, both the contentions of the petitioner fail and consequentially, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 10819 of 2001-K ================== J U D G M E N T 5th March, 2009