Baiju S. v. State of Kerala & Others (OP(KAT) No. 555 of 2012 (Z))

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2013-06-26
Court Decision / Holding: Subject to the aforesaid, this original petition is dismissed. No costs.
Final Disposition: Original Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Baiju S.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Director of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Lecturer in Computer Science Department of Technical Education, Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala Public Service Commission

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Nandakumara Menon (Sr.)
• P.K. Manojkumar
• Hena Bahuleyan

Counsels for Respondents

• Viju Abraham
• P.C. Sasidharan, SC, KPSC

Case Synopsis & Summary

Baiju S., a Demonstrator in Computer Engineering, sought promotion to Lecturer in Polytechnic Colleges under the Technical Education Department. He did not hold a basic degree in Computer Engineering; his Diploma in Electrical Engineering was not recognized as equivalent to the basic degree required by the Special Rules then in force. The Special Rules prescribed a 60% minimum in the final examination for the basic degree in the relevant subject, with a Note under Serial No. 5 allowing relaxation of this 60% requirement for first or second class Postgraduate degree holders, but only if the basic degree exists. The Director of Technical Education, impressed by the petitioner’s service record, recommended treating him as a special case and cited vacancies; government correspondence in 2011 signaled consideration of the issue as potentially policy-driven. The Government, however, treated the matter as a policy question rather than decide it on a case-by-case basis, and indicated that a general decision might be required. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal had decided against the petitioner, distinguishing the Jyothi K.K. precedent, and the High Court upheld that view, reaffirming that a basic degree in the subject is necessary and that the relaxation under the Note applies only where the basic degree exists. The court urged expeditious government action to address policy for similarly situated candidates and dismissed the petition with no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Special Rules requiring a basic degree in the subject with 60% minimum in final examinationNote under Serial No. 5 permitting relaxation for first/second class Postgraduate degree holders only where the basic degree exists

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that relaxation under the Note (Serial No. 5) should allow him promotion despite lacking a basic degree in Computer Engineering, especially in light of the Director’s recommendation to treat him as a special case and the vacancies. It is urged that the government action be guided by the Director’s recommendations and by the need to address manpower gaps in computer technology, and that the matter should not be reduced to a blanket policy stance in the absence of a case-specific decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain that the Special Rules clearly require a basic degree in the subject, with the 60% criterion applicable unless the Note 5 relaxation is triggered only when the basic degree exists; relaxation is not available merely because the candidate has a PG qualification. The matter, they argue, involves policy considerations and should be decided by the Government rather than the court; a general decision is required to address multiple similarly situated cases.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jyothi K.K. & others v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others	JT 2002 (Suppl.) 1 SC 85	Distinguished	The Tribunal distinguished this precedent; the current case’s facts and the specific Conference Rules lead to a different outcome, and the court did not apply that decision to override the Special Rules.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/5TH ASHADHA, 1935** **OP(KAT).No. 555 of 2012 (Z)** **---------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN TA 714/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 31-01-2012** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN T.A. :** **----------------------------BAIJU S., AGED 35 YEARS AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.P. THANKAPPAN NAIR DEMONSTRATOR IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING GOVERNMENT POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, KUMILY VANDIPERIYAR.P.O, IDUKKI, RESIDING AT SOBHANA MANDIRAM SASTHAMPARA, PUTHUKULANGARA.P.O, NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695541.** **BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.HENA BAHULEYAN** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS IN T.A. :** **-----------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERMNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTOIN COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF LECTURER IN COMPUTER SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER** **4. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **BP** **APPENDIX** ## **OP(KAT).No. 555 of 2012 (Z)** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2012 IN T.A 714/2012 PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM IN T.A NO. 714/2012 (W.P(C) 5247/201) TOGETHER WITH EXHBITS.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE PSC NOTIFICATION** **EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION TICKET** **EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET** **EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 13/07/2006** **EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/11/2011** **EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE MINIMUM QUALIFICATION AND EXPERIENCE AS PER AICTE NORMS.** **P10: COPY OF THE COMMUNCIAON NO.G.R.28320/RTI DT 11/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE STATE INFORMATION OFFICER, R.R. SECTION TO THE PETITIONER** - **P10(a): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIB9T P10.** **P11: COPY OF THE FIL;E NOTE OF THE PSC NO.C-386/96 DT 28/11/2008 TO THE SMT. SMITHA KARUNAN.** - **P11(a): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11.** - **P12: COPY OF THE U.O.NOTE NO.GRIIIB(3) 24606/05 DT 9/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.** **P13: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/2003 DT 11/7/2003 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.** - **P14: COPY OF THE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS OF THE IIT MADRAS.** - **P15: COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SIGHT CONCERNING THE M.TECH, COURSE OF THE (IIT MADRAS)** - **P16: COPY OF THE FILE NOTE CONTAINED IN THE FILE RELATING TO THE PROMOTION TO THE POST OF DEMONSTRATOR.** **P16(a): COPY OF THE FILE NOTE SHOWING THE QUESTION CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.O JUDGE** **BP** ## **THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.** ----------------------------------------------- O.P. (KAT) No.555 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of June, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** ## THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Heard. 2. Petitioner, a Demonstrator in Computer Engineering under the Director of Technical Education aspired to be appointed by promotion to the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering in Polytechnic Colleges of the Technical Education Department. Admittedly, he does not possess a basic degree in the subject concerned. The qualification of Diploma in Electrical Engineering which he possesses is not recognized by the Government as equivalent to the basic degree in Computer Engineering. In terms of the Special Rules, as it stood at the relevant time, one has to have a minimum of 60% marks in the final examination for the degree; not only that, the Special Rules have a Note under Serial No. 5 which says that in case of first or second class postgraduate degree holders, the prescribed 60% marks in the O.P. (KAT) No.555 of 2012 -2- concerned subject for the basic degree will not be insisted on. That Note fortifies that the requirement is decided dependent on the possession of a basic degree in the subject concerned. The Director of Technical Education, being impressed by the performance of the petitioner in service, issued a letter dated 20-12-2010 to the Principal Secretary to Government highlighting the need to consider the petitioner as a special case. By letter dated 9-1-2011, the Director also addressed the Government informing the existence of vacancies. We may immediately recall that the petitioner aspires for promotion as against certain vacancies relatable to the period during which the then Special Rules were in force. The Special Rules were thereafter amended as per Ext.P20. The Government did not find its way to accept recommendation of the Director to consider the case of the petitioner as a special case. Therefore, by communication dated 2-2-2011 (Ext.P21 in Ext.P2), the Government said that there may be different other persons similarly situated and hence, the matter may require a general decision of the Government O.P. (KAT) No.555 of 2012 -3- treating it as the policy matter. 3. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid as if it is the refusal of the Government to accept his qualification as equivalent to a basic degree in the subject concerned. Reference was made before the Tribunal in **Jyothi K.K. & others v. Kerala Public Service Commission & Others [JT 2002 (Suppl.) 1 SC 85]** , which dealt with a situation in the Kerala State Electricity Board; as to whether diploma holders and degree holders could be treated at par. The Tribunal distinguished that precedent and said that the case in hand has to be decided against the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the contents of the Special Rules. 4. As already noted, the Special Rules as they stood at the relevant point of time made the prescription of 60% minimum in the final examination for the basic degree in the subject concerned. Therefore, the clear expression of the statutory O.P. (KAT) No.555 of 2012 -4- provision is that a basic degree in the subject concerned is necessary. The relaxation done through the Note is that the insistence of 60% minimum gets excluded, if a person who has the basic degree in the subject concerned also obtains first or second class postgraduate degree. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to dissuade from the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. 5. Be that as it may, we think that the Government should consider as expeditiously as possible, the proposal it had made way back in February 2011, to treat the issue having regard to the possibility of different other candidates similarly situated. It has also to be remembered that there could be dearth of sufficient hands to manage the sector of computer technology in the growing stream of requirement in different facets, including management of cyber technology and other sectors of governance. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner points out the Director's recommendations indicating the availability of O.P. (KAT) No.555 of 2012 -5- vacancies. Subject to the aforesaid, this original petition is dismissed. No costs. **Sd/THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE** **Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE** kvr/28-6 /TRUE COPY/ P.S. to Judge