A.K. Remani v. The Chairman, Spices Board, The Secretary, Spices Board, and The Deputy Director, Administration, Spices Board

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 8493 of 2014** **----------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** **----------** **A.K. REMANI, AGED 54 YEARS, DAFTRY, SPICES BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE, VALIYAKULANGARA BUILDING, GOVERNMENT MODEL SCHOOL ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 682316.** **BY ADV.SRI.M.G.SREEJITH** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE CHAIRMAN, SPICES BOARD, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H.BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.** **2. THE SECRETARY,** **SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H. BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.** **3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATION, SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H. BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.** **BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC BY SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 8493 of 2014 (J)** ## **-------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** ## **---------------------** |**EXHIBIT-P1:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY**| |---|---| ||**THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 12.12.1995.**| |**EXHIBIT-P2:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**NO.ADM/APP/(4)/93 DATED 22.4.1997.**| |**EXHIBIT-P3:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**| ||**DATED 18.10.2001.**| |**EXHIBIT-P4:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE**| ||**THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2008.**| |**EXHIBIT-P5:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PROFILE OF SMT.AKILADEVI DOWNLOADED**| ||**FROM THE INTERNET.**| |**EXHIBIT-P6:**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| ||**ADM/APP/03/2013-14 DATED 10.2.2014.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** **---------------------** |**EXHIBIT R1A:**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.I.DEPT. OF PER. & IRG.**|| |---|---|---| ||**OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.14014/6/94-ESTT. (D)**|| ||**DATED 9.10.1998.**|| |**EXHIBIT R1B:**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.ADM/APP/03 2013-14**|| ||**DATED 12.12.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**|| |||**/TRUE COPY/**| **P.S.TO JUDGE** **mbr/ 12.07.2018.** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 -------------------------------------** Dated this the 4[th] day of July, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner, who got appointment as Group D servant under the Spices Board on compassionate appointment, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the rejection of her request for appointment in Group C. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Peon on 01.06.1995 under the compassionate employment scheme, consequent to the death of her husband. Petitioner's case is that since she is having the qualification of SSLC with Type Writing Lower in English, she was eligible for appointment as Junior Clerk. According to her, she joined duty in the Group D post, on the assurance of the respondents that she would be W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 2 accommodated in a Group C post as and when a vacancy arises. As the respondents did not appoint her in Group C post, even after arising of vacancies, petitioner submitted representations. In answer to the representation Ext.P1, the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext.P2 letter informed her that there was no vacancy of Junior Clerk in the Board at that time and that there was no provision for a second appointment, under the compassionate appointment scheme. Petitioner continued to make representations and the respondents continued to reject her representations, as per Ext.P3 letter dated 18.10.2001 and thereafter. Petitioner points out that while she was denied appointment as Junior Clerk, one Shri Sunil Kumar was appointed as a Junior Clerk as per Ext.P6 order. It is also pointed out that as per Ext.P5, one Smt.Akiladevi was appointed as Junior Clerk W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 3 subsequent to her appointment. 3. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Junior Clerk against a vacancy which arose after her appointment as Group D, taking into account her qualifications. 4. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was granted appointment under the Scheme for compassionate appointment consequent to the death of her husband and she joined as a Peon on 01.06.1995 against an existing vacancy and was posted in an office which is very near to her residence. It is stated that as per Ext.R1(a) memorandum issued by Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training on 09.10.1998, Clause 14 prohibits consideration of any request for appointment to any higher post on consideration of W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 4 ## compassion. Clause 14 of Ext.R1(a) reads as follows: - “14. Request for change in post/person When a person has been appointed on compassionate grounds to a particular post, the set of circumstances, which led to such appointments, should be deemed to have ceased to exist. Therefore,- - (a) he/she should strive in his/her career like his/her colleagues for future advancement and any request for appointment to any higher post on considerations of compassion should invariably be rejected. - (b) an appointment made on compassionate grounds cannot be transferred to any other person and any request for the same on considerations of compassion should invariably by rejected.” 5. Regarding the appointment of Smt.Akiladevi as per Ext.P5, it is stated that there was a vacancy existing in the post of Junior Clerk, when Smt.Akiladevi was appointed in 1999 on compassionate ground. Regarding Ext.P6 order, appointing Shri Sunil Kumar, it is stated that appointment to the 25% of the sanctioned strength of Junior Clerks is made by selection from among the officials in the pay band of 5200-20200+G.P.Rs.1900 or less, having the qualification of SSLC or above. Accordingly Ext.R1(b) W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 5 circular was issued on 12.12.2013 inviting applications from among employees with the qualification and it was released in Board's Internet site. But the petitioner, who was aware of the circular, did not submit her willingness or application for appointment pursuant to Ext.R1(b) circular. At the same time, Shri Sunilkumar submitted his willingness and he was provisionally promoted after conducting interview of the employees, who had submitted willingness. It is stated that the said appointment was in accordance with the recruitment rules. It is further pointed out that the petitioner will be eligible for consideration for promotion as Junior Clerk as and when her turn arises in accordance with seniority. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **I.G.** W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 6 **(Karmik) and Others v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi** [(2007) 6 SCC 162 ] in which the Apex Court held that a person who accepted an appointment in a lower post under the compassionate employment scheme cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled to a higher post. On considerations of the contentions on both sides, it is seen that in the light of Clause 14 of Ext.R1(a) Scheme as well as in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Prahalad Mani Tripathi** 's case (supra), the petitioner, who accepted the appointment as Peon in Group D under the respondents, cannot have any right to claim that she should be appointed in a Group C post just because she is having the qualification of SSLC. As and when applications are called for it was open to the petitioner to submit applications and to participate W.P.(C).No.8493 of 2014 7 in the process of selection for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk. As long as the petitioner has not chosen to furnish her willingness to be subjected to the process of selection, petitioner cannot have any legal claim for promotion as Junior Clerk in preference to Shri Sunil Kumar. The fact that one Smt Akiladevi was appointed in the year 1999 under the compassionate Employment Scheme as Junior Clerk will also not help the petitioner as she is already given the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Scheme. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS