IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 20687 of 2002(K) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, JUNIOR RESEARCH OFFICER, REGIONAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.CRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMARAN FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 20687/2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE. EXT.P3 NOTIFICATION DT. 21-7-1983. EXT.P4 PROCEEDINGS DT. 7-3-1988 EXT.P5 GOVT. ORDER DT. 29-6-1957. EXT.P6 DO. DT. 2-4-1965. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 22-12-2000. EXT.P8 GOVT. ORDER DT. 20-2-1985. EXT.P9 REPRESENTATION DT. 24-7-2001. EXT.P10 LETTER DT. 8-10-2001. EXT.P11 REVIEW PETITION DT. 4-12-2001. EXT.P12 LETTER DT. 25-9-2002. EXT.P13 REPRESENTATION DT. 3-10-2002. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 2/2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 20687 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed this writ petition when she was working as a Junior Research Officer in the Health Services Department of the Government of Kerala. She entered service as a Technical Assistant Grade II by selection through Public Service Commission. She possessed the qualification of degree in Chemistry and Diploma in Food Science and Preservation. For the particular post of Technical Assistant Grade II, the qualification prescribed was a Diploma in Food Technology in Second Class. Ext. P2 is the Diploma of the petitioner in Food Science and Preservation which she passed in First Class. This qualification of the petitioner was considered and found sufficient by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the qualification prescribed, which is Diploma in Food Technology. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade II. Subsequently, by Ext. P7 order dated 22-12-2000, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Research Officer. The petitioner alleges that while so, some of the juniors of the petitioner have been included in the select list for promotion to the post of Research Officer. Since the petitioner was not included in the select list, she filed Ext. P9 representation before the Government which was rejected by Ext. P10 order, wherein it was held that the petitioner's qualification is not the equivalent qualification prescribed for the post of Research Officer and also that she had not declared to have completed the period of probation satisfactorily. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P10 order. 2. According to the petitioner, the qualifications prescribed for the post of Research Officer are as per Ext. P8 which includes Diploma in Food Technology. According to the petitioner, for the post of Technical Assistant Grade II also, the qualification prescribed is O.P. No. 20687/2002. -: 2 :- Diploma in Food Technology. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant Grade II accepting her Diploma in Food Science and Preservation as equivalent to Diploma in Food Technology and therefore, the respondents cannot now contend that that qualification is not sufficient qualification for the post of Research Officer. She further submits that by Ext. P4, her probation has also been declared to have been completed satisfactorily. Therefore, she seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P10 Government Order; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to declare the probation of the petitioner in the post of Junior Research Officer, with effect from the date following the date on which she has completed one year of service on duty in the post; (c) declare that the qualification possessed by the petitioner as per Ext. P2 is the qualification in “Food Technology” prescribed for the post of Research Officer as per Ext. P8; (d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for inclusion in the select list of Research Officer.” 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. As far as the first contention of the petitioner regarding the sufficiency of her qualification is concerned, I find considerable merit in the contentions of the petitioner. As is clear from Ext. P3, the qualification prescribed for the post of Technical Assistant Grade II is a Diploma in Food Technology with Second Class. Ext. P2 qualification of the petitioner, namely, Diploma in Food Science and Preservation was treated as equivalent to Diploma in Food Technology and she had been appointed as Technical Assistant Grade II. That being so, it is too late in the day for the respondents to O.P. No. 20687/2002. -: 3 :- contend that for promotion to the post of Research Officer, that qualification is not sufficient. 5. However, I find merit in the second objection in Ext. P10. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted as Junior Research Officer only on 22-12-2000. Ext. P10 is passed on 8-10-2001 on a representation filed by the petitioner on 24-7-2001. Therefore, as on the date of representation, namely, 24-7-2001, the petitioner had barely completed less than seven months. The probation period in Government service is two years within a period of three years. That being so, the petitioner's probation could not have been declared at least as on 24-7-2001. Of course, the petitioner submits that no period of probation has been prescribed for the post of Junior Research Officer, which is belied by Ext. P14 produced by the petitioner herself, by which the petitioner's probation has been declared satisfactorily completed. The cause of action for filing the representation before the Government is stated to be promotion of some of the juniors of the petitioner. But, the petitioner has not chosen to implead any of her juniors alleged to have been promoted in preference to her, in this original petition. Admittedly, the petitioner has subsequently retired in 2008. In view of all the above facts, I do not find any merit in this original petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/