IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25034 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES, ASSOCIATION, GURUVAYUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, C.V. VIJAYAN. 2. R.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, SUPERINTENDENT GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE. 3. SRI. P. SANKUNNI RAJA, ASST. MANAGER, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1,2 SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN FOR R3 SRI.RAMAKRISHNAN SOMANADHAN NAIR FOR R3 SMT.V.RENJU FOR R3 SRI.P.ANIYAN FOR R3 SMT.M.A.RAMITHA FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.25034/09 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPODNENT IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE AND GRANTING PROMOTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT MANAGER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES FEDERATION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 25034 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T First petitioner is an Association of employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the second petitioner is working as a Superintendent. Their grievance is against Ext.P1 order promoting the 3rd respondent, a Superintendent, to the post of Assistant Manager. 2. The petitioners' case is that the method of appointment to various posts in the Guruvayur Devaswom has been laid down in the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983 framed under the provisions of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978. It is contended that Assistant Manager has to have the qualifications prescribed for the post of Head Clerk. It is stated that, the qualifications prescribed are S.S.L.C, pass in the test of Manual of Office Procedure conducted by PSC and pass in the Accounts Test (Lower) 1st Paper on KSR conducted by the PSC. Petitioners submit that the 3rd respondent has not passed the Accounts Test, and therefore, by Ext.P1, exempting him from the said qualification for a period of WPC No. 25034/09 :2 : one year, he has been promoted. Petitioners contend that there is no enabling provision in the Regulations, and therefore, the promotion given to the 3rd respondent is illegal. 3. On the other hand, the stand taken by the party respondent is that the Regulation relied on by the counsel for the petitioners has been amended by notification dated 8/7/2003 w.e.f. 19/7/90. It is stated that the post of Head Clerk and the qualification prescribed for the post of Head Clerk have been deleted from the regulations, and as per the amended Regulations, the feeder category for the post of Assistant Manager is Upper Division Clerk or Devaswom Inspector. It is contended that the post of Superintendent belongs to the category of Upper Division Clerk and that the 3rd respondent is fully qualified for the said post. Therefore, according to the counsel, he is entitled to be promoted to the post of Assistant Manger even if he does not possess the qualification prescribed for the now abolished post of Head Clerk. This contention is supported by the Devaswom Board also. 4. Having heard the counsel on either side, I am inclined to agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents. WPC No. 25034/09 :3 : Regulation shows that, for the post of Assistant Manager, qualifications prescribed for Head Clerk were made applicable. However, with the amendment dated 8/7/03, which has come into force w.e.f. 19/7/90, the post of Head Clerk and the qualifications laid down for the said post, have been deleted by Clause 3 of the amendment notification. Sub Clause 2 of Clause 3 of the said notification also provides that the method of appointment for the post of Assistant Manager will stand substituted as “promotion from UD Clerk or Devaswom Inspector”. If that be so, those working in the category of UD Clerk or Devaswom Inspector are entitled to be promoted for the post of Assistant Manager. It is not necessary that such employees should have additional qualification prescribed for the post of Head Clerk, since that post and its qualifications have been deleted from the Regulations itself. 5. Petitioner has no case that the 3rd respondent is unqualified to hold the post of UD Clerk. So long as this position is accepted and as under the amended Regulations, UD Clerk, without any additional qualification, is eligible to be promoted to the post of Assistant Manager, the 3rd respondent was eligible for WPC No. 25034/09 :4 : promotion., In view of the above, I cannot agree with the contention of the counsel that even after amendment, the qualification for the Assistant Manager continued as qualification for the Head Clerk. 6. In the result, I do not find any substance in the objection raised by the petitioners against the promotion of the 3rd respondent even though the Devaswom appears to have wrongly stated in Ext.P1 that the 3rd respondent should acquire pass in Accounts Test within a period of one year. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp