IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22280 of 2006(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. A. ABDUL KARIM, TRADESMAN (HIGHER GRADE), CARD NO.388, KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD., ARALUMMOODU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. RESIDING AT NAZEEM MANZIL,TC.33/840, VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. P.M. CHACKO, TRADESMAN HIGHER GRADE, CARD NO.427, KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD., ARALUMMOODU P.O., TRIVANDRUM. PARUTHIYATTU HOUSE, BLOCK NO.213, EX-SERVICEMENS' COLONY, MANNADISHALA P.O. VECHUCHIRA. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD., ARALUMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22280/2006 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD.2/2/2005. P2: COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP.NO.6533,4807 AND 6456 OF 2005 DTD. 25/05/2006. P3: COY OF THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT. P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITION BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DTD. 8/02/2005. P5: COPY OF THE REPORT AGAINST THE ENDORSEMENT NO.1672/A4/95/M/I&M. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 22280 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are working as Tradesmen in the respondent company. While in service they claimed to have acquired higher qualification namely Diploma in Engineering (Mechanical), which according to them, is sufficient for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer as per the recruitment rules applicable to the respondent company. But in the rules, there is no provision for considering in-service personnel for appointment by transfer to higher posts even if they have the qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment. It is under the above circumstances they have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order commanding of the respondent to place before this Honourable court the files and records, stating the further action taken by the respondent as reported under Ext.P3. b) Direct the respondent company to formulate byelaw or guidelines for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer by Direct Recruitment from among the qualified inservice personal other wise than from the feeder category by seniority. W.P.(C)No. 22280 of 2006 -2- 2. In view of passage of time, they confine their reliefs for prayer No. '(b)' only. 3. The respondent claims to have filed a counter affidavit which is not on record. The counsel for the petitioners submits that, he also has not received a copy of the same. The counsel for the respondent would contend that, this court cannot direct framing of rules insofar as it is the province of the management to frame service rules regarding its employees. He would further submit that, the petitioners have their normal channel of promotion and simply because they have higher qualifications they cannot go over others in the immediate higher category to get appointment to higher posts. They have to come through the channel of promotion available to them as per rules. Therefore they are not entitled to be considered for higher posts even by direct recruitment is the contention raised. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. The respondent could not satisfy me that, there is any prohibition in the rules applicable to the employees of W.P.(C)No. 22280 of 2006 -3- the respondent company in the matter of applying for direct recruitment if they have the qualifications prescribed for higher posts as and when the company intends to resort to direct recruitment. In the absence of any such prohibition, simply because the petitioners are employees of the company, I am of opinion that, they should not be denied the opportunity to apply for direct recruitment for consideration along with others who apply for the posts. This is all the more so when there is no rules regarding appointment by transfer on acquisition of higher qualifications commensurate with the qualifications so acquired. The respondent should encourage their employees to acquire higher and better qualifications which is only to the advantage of the company. For that, necessary rules have to be framed giving them incentives for acquiring higher or better qualification. In the absence of any such rules, I am of opinion that, the employees who have requisite qualifications for direct recruitment should also be permitted to apply for direct recruitment along with W.P.(C)No. 22280 of 2006 -4- other applicants from open market and the petitioners should not be denied the opportunity simply because of they are employees of the company. 6. Of course, the counsel for the respondent submits that, the petitioners have subsequently been terminated from service because of their long absence. The counsel for petitioners have no information regarding the same. I am not commenting on the same insofar as if they have been terminated from service then the respondent cannot have any objection in considering them for direct recruitment. In view of the above findings, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider applications of in-service personnel also for direct recruitment, if they possess all the qualifications for direct recruitment including academic qualification, experience qualification and age qualification and any other qualification prescribed for direct recruitment. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/