IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 596 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.5043/2010 Dated 25/02/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC ------------------------------- DHANASREE.D.,D/O.LATE DHARMAPUTHRAN T.B, RAJBHAVAN HOUSE,KADUKKARA, EDAVATTOM P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686605. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)FORPORATIN LTD., P.B.NO.2263,SASTHAKRIPA OFFICE COMPLEX, SATHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695101, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. G.P. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER.P.J, SC,BEVERAGES CORPN FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.596 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellant is not entitled to category change in employment from Labeling Worker to Assistant Grade-II under the second respondent. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The appellant's father was a Labeling Worker with the second respondent when he died in service in June 2002. The deceased employee left behind two minor girls, the elder of which is the appellant. Being a minor, the appellant continued her studies, took a Degree in Mathematics and a Post-Graduate Degree in Business Administration. She applied for the post of Assistant Grade-II under compassionate scheme in the year 2006. The second respondent on receipt of application found eligibility for the appellant for appointment under compassionate scheme, but appointed her as a Labeling Worker, 2 the very same post her father was holding before his death. In other words, compassionate appointment was given like a succession to the post held by the deceased father of the appellant. The appellant after joining service of the second respondent, applied for a category change from Labeling Worker to Assistant Grade-II, which was declined against which the W.P.(C) was filed. The learned Single Judge held that category change is not permissible from worker class to clerical cadre, against which this Writ Appeal is filed. 3. After hearing both sides and after going through the Government Order pertaining to compassionate appointment in Public Sector Undertakings which governs the second respondent, we notice that the categories to which appointments can be made under compassionate scheme are Class III, Class IV, Worker and Unskilled Worker to which direct recruitment is one of the methods of appointment. Obviously the highest cadre to which a person can be 3 appointed under the compassionate scheme of appointment irrespective of the qualification of the candidate is Class III. Obviously the scheme contemplates the employer to take into account the educational qualification of the candidate seeking employment under the compassionate scheme and the candidate should be placed wherever vacancy is there at the highest possible post. In fact, the choice is only between Class III and Class IV. Even though appellant is having the qualification B.Sc.(Mathematics) and M.B.A. and probably is eligible to be appointed even as an Officer, her demand is only to be considered for posting in the clerical cadre which is Class III appointment permissible under the scheme. We do not find any justification for making the appellant a Worker which is a Class IV employment when her qualification is much more than what is required for appointment as an employee in the clerical cadre. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct 4 the second respondent to place the appellant in any vacancy available or in the next available vacancy in the clerical cadre. However, we make it clear that this judgment is rendered in the context of the qualifications and peculiar features of this case and is not to be treated as a precedent in all cases. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms