In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - WP(C) Nos. 19750/2013; 20708/2013; 21640/2013 and 33511/2017

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 MOHAMMED ASHRAF U TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-691005.** **2 SHAJI.M.B. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-691005.** **3 SHEENA.A TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-691005.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.ANNIE JACOB SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION TRIVANDRUM-695001.** **3 THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KOLLAM-691005, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, THANGAL KUNJU MUSALIAR TRUST, HEAD OFFICE, RANDAMKUTTY, KOLLAM-691005.** - **4 PHILIPOSE PANICKER TRADE INSTRUCTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM -5.** **RESIDING AT MECHIRAYIL VEEDU, TRIPILANGAZHIKAM.P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM -691 005.IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **2** **DATED 06.11.2013 IN I.A.NO.14005/2013.** - **5 A. ASHARAF** - **TRADESMAN [CARPENTRY], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-5.** - **6 PRASANNAN. M TRADESMAN [FITTER], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, NSS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD-8. [CORRECTED] [ADDL.R6 IS CORRECTED AS 'TRADESMAN [FOUNDRY], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL, ENGINEERING, T.K.M COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING , KOLLAM-5.** - **7 NIZAMUDHEEN .M TRADESMAN [ELECTRICAL], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-5.** - **8 ALEXANDER .S TRADESMAN [FOUNDRY], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-5.** - **9 MOHAMMED SHAREEF E.K TRADESMAN [PAINTER], DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, T.K.M. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOLLAM-5.** **ADDITIONAL R5 TO R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.01.2016 IN I.A.1000/16.** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA SRI.K.JAJU BABU SR. SRI.S.PRASANTH AYYAPPANKAVU SMT.M.R.SREELATHA SRI.N.SUGATHAN SRI.T.G.SUNIL PRANAVAM SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.21640, 20708 OF 2013 AND, 33511/2017 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21640 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** **SUDHEER M.V., AGED 42 YEARS. TRADE INSTRUCTOR GR.II, ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD 678 008.** **BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARETMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PALAKKAD , REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN GOVERNING BODY OF NSS HEAD OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY-2.** - **4 THE PRINCIPAL N.S.S.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD 678 008.** ## **BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.19750, 20708 OF 2013 AND, 33511/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 20708 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** **RAJESH.P. TRADE INSPECTOR GR.II, ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, N.S.S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALAKKAD -678 008.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.T.B.REMANI SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.P.A.RINUSA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** - **3 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 002.** - **4 N.S.S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING PALAKKAD, RPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY OF N.S.S HEAD OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY -2.** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **5** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.GOPAL SRI.K.JAJU BABU SR. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.21640, 19750 OF 2013 AND, 33511/2017 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **6** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 33511 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **CECIL RAJU AGED 32 YEARS S/O.RAJU ISAAC, CHITTAYAMMALIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM P.O., KEEZHILLAM, PIN: 683 541.** ## **BY ADV SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION THIRUVANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 JOINT DIRECTOR REGIONAL TECHNICAL EDUCATION, (ELECTRICAL), KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691** - **4 MAR ATHANESIUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.** - **5 GOVERNING BODY MAR ATHANESIUS COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691.** **7** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE JACOB JOSE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NOS.21640, 20708 AND 19750 OF 2013 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **8** ## **JUDGMENT** [WP(C) Nos.19750/2013, 20708/2013, 21640/2013, 33511/2017] Captioned four writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. In WP(C) Nos.19750/2013, 20708/2013 and 21640/2013, order of the Government bearing G.O.(Rt) No.1439/2013/H.Edn dated 09.07.2013 is challenged, whereby, in pursuance to the directions contained in the common judgment dated 12.03.2013 rendered in W.P.(C).No.3494/2012 and connected cases was attempted to be implemented. The pith and substance of the Government order reveals that the promotions have to be made institutional-wise instead of grade/departmentwise. W.P.(C).No.33511/2017 is filed to implement the aforesaid order dated 09.07.2013 which has been stayed by this Court, as by virtue of the order impugned in other writ petitions promotion was already effected to him by institution-wise, vide order dated 01.06.2017. It is in this background all the writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law are being decided. 2. There is a checkered history of controversy raised in the writ petitions as it is not for the first time affected parties **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **9** have approached this Court. A question arose before the Single Bench of this Court in O.P.Nos.2907/2019 and 5530/1993 as to how the post of Skilled Assistant Grade-II is to be filled by promoting attenders ie., whether it should be based upon “qualification” in the particular trade or based upon the “common seniority” in the cadre of attenders. Learned single judge disposed of the original petitions by giving following directions: i) The State Government will address to the desirability of expeditiously fixing staff pattern in private engineering colleges/ colleges. ii) Promotions can be effected on the basis of an order on provisional basis subject to review after final fixation of nonteaching staff pattern. 3. The Division Bench in writ appeal Nos.1150/94 and 1202/94 vide common judgment dated 07.03.1995 disposed of the appeals by directing the Government to examine the entire issues and pass an order fixing the staff pattern in Private Engineering colleges and Polytechnics as directed by the Single Bench and till such order is passed, promotion to the cadre of **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **10** Skilled Assistant Grade–II should be on the basis of “Trade wise” seniority of the Attenders. 4. The aforementioned order was taken to Supreme Court vide Civil Appeal No.1897-1900/1998 and vide common judgment dated 11.03.1998 it was upheld with a direction that the Government will take a call subject to the final fixation of staff pattern. 5. Keeping in view the directions contained in the judgment aforementioned Government vide order dated 30.11.2000 fixed the staff pattern as 1:4:4 ie., 1- for Instructor Grade-II, 4- for Trade Instructor and 4- for Tradesman. This Staff pattern was assailed in this Court vide W.P.(C).No.9209/2011 titled as _**Shijimon K.S. Tradsman, Turnor Mechanical Engineering Department Mar Athnasius College of Engineering Kothamangalam**_ v. _**The Director of Technical Education**_ as a representation in this regard was submitted. The Government, in view of the judgment in the aforesaid petition, vide order dated 14.12.2011 passed an order that the staff pattern of the non-teaching staff of Private Engineering College fixed by the Government order as 1:4:4 was based upon the **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **11** department-wise seniority. Therefore the promotion is to be effected based upon department-wise seniority in respect of nonteaching staff ie., between Instructor Grade-II, Trade Instructor and Tradesman. 6. The aforementioned order was assailed in this Court by various writ petitions and this Court vide common judgment as noticed above in W.P.(C).No.3494/2012 decided on 12.03.2013 set aside the order which was referred to as Ext.P15 therein and directed the Government to pass the order afresh. While disposing of the writ petition this Court also referred to Statute 66 of Calicut University (conditions of service of teachers and members of non-teaching staff) First Statute, 1979 applicable to the present University in the absence of any Rules ie., which dealt with qualification and method of appointment, the vacancies in the higher grades to be filled by promotion from the next lower categories on account of availability of qualified persons, according to seniority in the case of non-selection posts, and according to merit and seniority in the case of selection post. In the absence of any candidates available for promotion to the higher grades, those posts to be filled up by direct recruitment by **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **12** inviting applications which was subject to the Rules in force in similar Government Institutions. Statute 69 of the Mahatma Gandhi University Statute, 1997, was also referred to being _pari materia_ with the aforementioned provisions. It was also observed that the Rules in force in Government Institutions should govern the promotions to the higher posts in Aided Engineering Colleges. There was a detailed deliberation upon the applicability of the aforementioned statutes and this Court in paragraph 13 and 14 held as under: “13. While evaluating the rival contentions, I am of the opinion that, prescription of the method of appointment/promotion is a matter purely coming within the wisdom and policy decision of the Government. Contentions based on observations contained in Exhibits P11 and P12 judgments, for challenging Exhibit P15 cannot be accepted in total. Infact Exhibit P11 judgment has not laid any dictum which is binding on the Government restraining them from effecting change in the method of appointment or in fixing the criteria for reckoning seniority for promotion. Practical difficulties which may be experienced in implementing the method adopted in the impugned order is not a valid reason for interference by this court. It is left open to the Government to evaluate the situation and to formulate its own policies in the matter of prescribing method for appointment by way of promotion. But in the case at hand, a crucial question arises as to whether the method prescribed **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **13** in Exhibit P15 has violated any statutory provisions. As already pointed out, Statute 66 prescribes that, regarding qualification and method of appointment the rules prevalent in similar Government institutions will apply. Relying on the special Rules, contentions are to the effect that, criteria for seniority followed in Government institutions is departmentwise. Factually the above aspect stands conceded by the Government in their counter affidavit. Question posed is as to whether the Government is bound to follow the very same method in the matter of promotions with respect to nonselection posts in aided private Engineering Colleges. Contention of the party respondents is that the statutory prescriptions are only with respect to qualifications and method of appointment, and there is no prescription with respect to the criteria of seniority. Hence the Government is not at an obligation to follow the same criteria in private colleges, is the contention. Further it is pointed out that the qualification prescribed under the special Rules is only a trade certificate in 'appropriate trade', and not in the specific trade itself. Therefore, even assuming (without admitting) that the special Rules will apply, the same does not insist for reckoning trade-wise seniority. Therefore Exhibit P15 will not be violative of Exhibit P20 special Rules or the Statue, is the contention. 14. It is pertinent to note that the issue was remaining in controversy from the year 1990 onwards. Litigations at repeated rounds were agitated on the very same issue, and considerable confusions has already been created in the matter of effecting promotions. By virtue of Exhibits P11 & P12 judgments, directions were issued to formulate staff pattern, with an intention to prescribe a consistent method to be adopted in the matter of reckoning **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **14** seniority for promotion. But in Exhibit P13, without resolving the disputed issue, Government have limited only to fixation of staff pattern by prescribing only a ratio among the different cadre. This has led to further complication and resulted in filing of further writ petitions before this court. Ultimately when Exhibit P15 order is issued the Government have only relied on the decision of this court in O.P.No.21063/2000, confirmed by a Division Bench. But the said judgment only clarified that what is contemplated in the ratio contained in Exhibit P13, is only department-wise seniority. But the Government while Issuing Exhibit P15 have failed to take into consideration about the special Rules and the method being followed in Government Engineering Colleges. Further, the Government have failed in taking into consideration of the University Statutes which insist that the Rules prevailing in Government Engineering Colleges are bound to be followed in the matter of aided Colleges. Omission to consider the above aspects has lead to further controversies and litigations. Petitioners have placed reliance on Exhibit P25 letter issued by the Director of Technical Education, which will indicate that a meeting of all concerned has been convened to discuss about the anomalies experienced in the matter of effecting promotions to the non-selection posts. This will further indicate that the method adopted had resulted in creating confusions and practical difficulties. At any rate, the question whether the Government is bound to follow the same method as in the case of Government Colleges by virtue of the insistence in the University Statutes, is a question which require consideration by the Government. **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **15** 7. It is in that background/directions, the impugned order dated 09.07.2013 has been passed. The relevant portion of the same is extracted herein below: The Hon'ble High Court in its common judgment dated 12.03.2013 in WP(C) No.3494/2012 filed by Shri.Saneh K.V. and others of N.S.S.College of Engineering, Palakkad and WP(C)No.672/2012 filed by Shri.Ajith K.A. Nair, Trade Instructor, Mechanical Engineering Department, N.S.S.College of Engineering, Palakkad have quashed the G.O. read as 2nd paper above, in which Government has clarified that staff pattern of non-teaching staff of Private Aided Engineering Colleges fixed in the G.O. read as 1 paper above as 1:4:4 is based on department-wise seniority among Instructor Gr.II, Trade Instructor, Tradesman and directed the 1 respondent (State of Kerala) for a fresh decision in the matter of promotion of Tradesman to Trade Instructor in Private Aided Engineering Colleges taking note of all the relevant aspects particularly the criteria for reckoning seniority for the purpose of promotion to the above posts. Accordingly, the Government have heard all the parties concerned on 20.06.2013 and arrived at the following decisions. - Promotions from Tradesman to Trade Instructor will be effected based on their Institutional Seniority' i.e., and when a vacancy arises in the post of Trade Instructor in any branch in that institution, the senior most Tradesman in that institution will be promoted to **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **16** Trade Instructor in his own trade. The Trade Instructor post which originally became vacant will be converted to Tradesman post in the same trade and this Tradesman post will be filled per the existing rules. In this process the total number of posts of Trade Instructor and the total number of posts of Tradesman will remain unchanged. * * The above process will ensure that all Tradesmen irrespective of their trade will get fair chance of promotions. This promotion policy was framed considering all relevant aspects and with due regard to assuring natural justice. In the above circumstances, Government are pleased to order that the staff pattern of on-teaching staff of Private Aided Engineering Colleges fixed as 1:4:4 is based on institutional seniority' w.e.f. 01.07.2009, i.e., the date of effect of 9th Pay Revision. All promotions issued after 01.07.2009 will be reviewed as above. The common judgment dated 12.03.2013 in WP(C)No.3494/2012 filed by Shri.Saneh K.V. and others of N.S.S.College of Engineering, Palakkad and WP(C)No.672/2012 filed by Shri. Ajith K.A. Nair, Trade Instructor, Mechanical Engineering Department, N.S.S. College of Engineering, Palakkad is thus complied with. 8. The contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioners except in W.P.(C).No.33511/2017 is that the order impugned is not sustainable on the following grounds: i) The affected parties like the petitioners herein have not **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **17** been given any effective opportunity of hearing except to the petitioners referred to in the judgment dated 12.3.2013. ii) There is no adherence or reference to the statute 66 of Calicut Statutes, 1979 and Statute 69 of Mahatma Gandhi University Statutes, 1997. iii) Even the Director Technical Education in the counter filed in W.P.(C).No.33511/2017 has supported the other petitioners of affecting the promotion as departmental-wise instead of institutional-wise. iv) A person having no knowledge in a particular trade belonging to other institutions, if the impugned order is made applicable, would be made senior and such action and procedure would be totally anarchical and uncomprehendible. v) There has not been adherence of the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. Even in the previous judgment of this Court rendered by the Division Bench in W.P(C).3494/2012, categoric admission was made by the Government in the counter affidavit that the promotion to the Trade Instructor would be trade-wise ie., the seniority to be followed by both Government **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **18** and Private Engineering Colleges. 9. The act of the Government is complete _volte face_ not backed by any reasoning or justification or applicability of Rules/Statutes. There is no reference in the order about the statutes and Rules, thus Ext.P9 is a non-speaking order. Duties and responsibilities possessed by the person holding the post of Instructor, Trade Instructors and Tradesman will prove beyond any shadow of doubt that only the Tradesman possessing the qualification, experience in a particular trade can demonstrate to the students in respects of the machineries, tools and other instruments to be handled. The introduction of any criteria other than trade-wise seniority in the matter of promotion to Trade Instructors in Private Engineering Colleges in this state will result in substantial prejudice to the engineering students community as a whole. 10. Trade Instructor Grade-II instructs the students on the operations of various machines/instruments/implements while Tradesman maintains the workshop and machines. The aforementioned posts are available in each trade because trades are distinct from each other. Thus the instructor in one trade **19** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** cannot impart practical training in other trade. In other words, the incumbents in each trade are not interchangeable. Government vide order dated 12.10.2012 promulgated rules ie., Kerala Technical Educations Subordinate Service Rules, 2012 wherein for Instructor Senior Grade, Trade Instructor grade-I and Trade Instructor Grade–II, identical qualifications for the purpose of promotion by transfer and direct recruitment have been provided. If the institution-wise seniority is followed, a person who do not possess a particular trade will have to be posted as a Trade Instructor in that trade which would be against the statutory rule and interest of the students. 11. Sri.Peeyus.A.Kottam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.33511/2013 supported the impugned order challenged in the other writ petitions ie., order dated 09.07.2013 by raising the following submissions: i) It enlarges the scope of consideration of seniority and rule out the stagnation. ii) Government cannot be prevented to as in fact promotion by way of the interim order of this Court as orders are in personam and not in rem. **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **20** iii) In the college last three years no promotions have been made owing to the status quo order. Respondent Government is not implementing the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner dated 01.06.2017 in view of the interim order. The institutional promotion is fairly justified and liable to be sustained. 12. Per contra Sri.Jimmy George, learned Government Pleader supported the impugned order 09.07.2013 by submitting that the order impugned was passed in compliance of the directions contained in the judgment dated 12.3.2013 of this Court and the affected parties were given opportunity of hearing. Government came to the conclusion that the institution-wise seniority taken as a criteria for promotion to the post of Trade Instructor Grade-II it would be fair chance to all tradesman in the institution to get promotion to the post of Trade Instructor irrespective of their trade and principles of natural justice would be maintainable. The date of the fact of institution-wise seniority has been fixed as 01.07.2009 as on this date Government has introduced and made applicable in 9[th] pay revision to the State Government employees and urged this Court for dismissal of the **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **21** three writ petitions. Additional respondents in W.P(C).19750/13 adopt the same view of the petitioner in W.P(C).33511/17. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 14. On plain and simple reading of the impugned order which is extracted above, it is desciple for that there is no advertence or adherence to provisions of Statute 66 of Calicut University (conditions of service of teachers and members of nonteaching staff) First Statute, 1979 as well as Statute 69 of Mahatma Gandhi Statute, 1997 which is _pari materia_ . It is seen from time to time that the Government has been passing order in compliance of the directions of the court to avoid any harsh order of contempt but have not been alive to the situation which is evident from the fact that the earlier order dated 14.12.2011 by clarifying staff pattern as 1:4:4 as department wise has taken a complete summersault by defining the staff pattern of 1:4:4 as institutional wise. Such an apposite stand of the Government from time to time, in my view, cannot be permitted to sustain from the judicial scrutiny of this Court while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of **22** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** India as large number of employees are impacted. There ought to have been an objection invited from all the affected parties by giving an opportunity and then take a call leading to applicability in accordance with Statute and Rules. 15. Not only this, there has also not been adherence to the Kerala Technical Educations Subordinate Service Special Rules, 2002, which provides identical qualification for all the three categories defined as staff pattern. In other words, the impugned order is highly atrocious and repugnant. The consequences have also not been envisioned in correct perspective in as much as that a person having no knowledge in a particular trade in a private and non-aided colleges would not be in a position to impart education and training to the students of respective courses. For the sake of repetition it is not the first time the controversy has been taken, in view of the facts and circumstances described above, as on two occasions the Government has been directed to revisit. Now this would be again a third opportunity for revisiting in view of the observation hereinabove. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.07.2013 is **23** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** quashed. W.P.(C).Nos.20708/2013, 21640/2013 and 19750/2013 are allowed. W.P.(C).No.33511/2013 is dismissed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the issue having a enormous impact on the affected parties as during the interregnum few have been promoted as evidenced from the contents and pleadings of the writ petition W.P.(C).No.33511/2017, as indulgence of this Court has been sought for implementing the order impugned which has been quashed. As a necessary corollary, the order putting the promotion of the aforementioned petitioner on hold in my view is justified. All the parties affected would be given opportunity of hearing ie., the one who would be benefited in both the matters to be adopted by the Government keeping in view the Statutes and Rules in vogue. Let this exercise be undertaken within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Till such time the status quo order already passed by this Court shall continue. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** nak **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **24** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19750/2013** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1:** **TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 01.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 16.02.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.03.1995 IN W.A.NO.1202/1994 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.1998 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1899 TO 1900/1998.** - **EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.184/2000/H.EDN.DATED 30.11.2000.** **EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.07.2007 IN W.A.NO.1377/2007 ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.2036/2011 DATED 14.12.2011. EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.3494/2012 AND CONNECTED CASE. EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.G.O.(P) NO.503/2012/H.EDN. DATED 12.10.2012. EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **25** **NO.1439/2013/H.EDN. DATED 09.07.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16-12-1988 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13-101995 ISSUED BY PROFESSOR AND HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 36013/J2/89/H.EDN. DATED 5-5-1990 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** ## **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** ## **26** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21640/2013** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29/5/2000 OF THE PETITIONER AS TRADESMAN** **EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/7/2000 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/9/2008** **EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER DATED 1/6/2010** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2010 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/7/2011** - **EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE GO (RT)NO.2036/2011 DATED 14/12/2011** - **EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF GO(MSD)NO.41/03/H.EDN DATED 14/10/2003** **EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/6/2013 IN WPC NO.30343/2012** **EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12/3/2013 IN WPC NO.672/2012** **EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1439/2013 /H.EDN DATED 9/7/2013** **EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21/8/2013 IN WPC NO.20708/2013** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **27** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20708/2013** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT-P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE PROMOTION ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/03/1995 IN W.A NO. 1202/1994 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT-P3 -TRUE COPY OF THE ORDE DATED 11/03/1998 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1900/1998 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT** - **EXHIBIT-P4 -TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 184/2000/H.EDN. DATED 30/11/2000.** **EXHIBIT-P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 02/07/2007 IN W.A NO. 1377/2007** **EXHIBIT-P6 -TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 2036/2011 DATED 14/12/2011.** - **EXHIBIT-P7 -TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12/03/2013 IN W.P(C) 3494/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES.** - **EXHIBIT-P8 -TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETEE NOTIFICATION G.O(P) NO. 503/2012/H.EDN. DATED 12/10/2012.** **EXHIBIT-P9TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 1439/2013/H.EDN. DATED 09/07/2013.** **WP(C) NO. 19750 OF 2013 & Conn. cases** **28** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33511/2017** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 12/3/2013 IN WPC NO.3494/2012 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO.1439/2013/H.EDN. DATED 9/7/2013 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROMOTION ORDER NO.B61287/17 (TS/IS-30 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/8/2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF JOINT DIRECTOR EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 18/3/2016 IN WPC NO.19750/13 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT**