N.K. Kripa v. State of Kerala and Others (W.A. No. 548 of 2008)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 548 of 2008() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.29718/2007 Dated 01/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT: 1ST PETITIONER ------------------------- N.K.KRIPA, VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, (NOW DY. TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS & 2ND PETITIONER ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.T.THAMPY, VILLAGE OFFICER, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, ALONG WITH WA NO. 578 OF 2008 & OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **J.B. KOSHY & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ.** **---------------------------------------------------W.A.NOS.548, 578, 614, 617 & 630 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of May, 2008.** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Koshy, J:** All these writ appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 1.12.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioners are employees of the Land Revenue Department. They were having the required qualification at the time of their appointment. They have passed all the required tests and their probation was declared as satisfactorily completed. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.19533/2007/1[st] respondent in W.A.No.578/2008 was appointed as L.D. Clerk in the Land Revenue Department by direct recruitment on 14.10.1983. He was promoted as U.D. Clerk, Head Clerk and as Deputy Tahsildar. He contends that his promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was as per Rules and his promotion as Deputy Tahsildar is beyond challenge. He is an approved probationer having passed Survey Test (Higher) which is a qualification prescribed in the Special Rules. The Revenue and Village establishments were integrated with effect from 10.9.1984 and passing of Chain Survey test was made compulsory as per the W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 2 amendment made to the Special Rules in 1989 with retrospective effect from the date of integration for appointment as L.D.Clerks/Village Assistants. The Special Rules were again amended by G.O.(P).No.460/96/RD dated 12.8.1996 by which they need pass the Chain Survey test only during probation and that amendment was also made retrospective with effect from 10.9.1984. 2. The essential question to be decided in these writ appeals is whether for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar, a pass in the Chain Survey test can be insisted in the case of those persons who were appointed as L.D. Clerk prior to 12.7.1989. Initially, the minimum qualification prescribed for the post of L.D. Clerk was S.S.L.C but before declaration of probation they had to pass the District Office Manual (DOM) test. As far as the U.D. Clerks are concerned, they had to pass Account Test (lower), Revenue Test and DOM Test. As per G.O.(P) No.567/1989/RD dated 12.7.1989 Chain Survey test was made a compulsory qualification for appointment as L.D. Clerk as well as Village Assistant and it was made effective from 10.9.1984, the date of integration. Even though by the amendment of the Special Rules in 1989 Chain Survey test was a compulsory qualification for W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 3 appointment as Village Assistants/Village Officer the same cannot be made applicable to L.D. Clerks and Village Assistants, who were appointed prior to 12.7.1989 as their vested rights will be affected as held by the Apex Court in **T.R. Kapur & Others v. State of Hariyana & Others** (AIR 1987 SC 415). In this connection we also refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in **Kerala Panchayat Executive Officers Association v. State of Kerala** (2000(3) KLT 701) and a Single Bench decision in **T.K. Gopinathan & Others v. State of Kerala & Others** (1984 KLT 726). In any event, the 1989 amendment to the Special Rules was with retrospective effect and as the appellants in W.A.Nos.548/2008, 614/2008, 617/2008, 630/2008 and the first respondent in W.A.No.578/2008 were having the necessary qualification at the time of their initial appointment, their probation was also declared. Thereafter, they were promoted as U.D.Clerk/Village Officer, Head Clerk and Deputy Tahsildar. A person appointed as Deputy Tahsildar has to pass the following tests during probation: “1. D.O.M. 2. Revenue Test 3. Criminal Judicial Test W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 4 4. Account Test (Lower) 5. Survey Test (Higher)”. 3. So, for Deputy Tahsildars, before declaration of probation, a pass in the Survey Test (Higher) is compulsory. It is a higher qualification than Chain Survey test. The question is whether those employees, who were appointed when Chain Curvey test was not a qualification for initial appointment, can be denied promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar for not having passed the Chain Survey test. The above employees were initially appointed as per the Rules. They were having the required qualification prescribed as per the Rules, at the time of their initial appointment and subsequent promotion. On successful completion of probation in that cadre, their probation was declared and they were given further promotions. They were having sufficient qualification for appointment as Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar as per the present rules. On appointment as Deputy Tahsildar, they have to pass Survey Test (Higher) which is a higher qualification than Chain Survey test. Their promotion cannot be denied merely because at the time of appointment in the entry cadre they did not have the qualification of a pass in W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 5 the Chain Survey test which was not compulsory as per rules at that time. In the present Special Rules it is not mentioned that Chain Survey test is a compulsory qualification for appointment as Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar. But during probation as Deputy Tahsildar, they have to pass Survey Test (Higher), which is a higher qualification than the Chain Survey test. 4. In the above circumstances, the direction of the learned Single Judge that the writ petitioners have to pass Chain Survey test before declaration of their probation as Deputy Tahsildar is not warranted by the Special Rules as their initial appointment was as per the Rules and satisfactory completion of probation in their earlier cadre was declared as per rules. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is therefore set aside and the official respondents are directed to consider them for promotion according to their eligibility for the post of Deputy Tahsildar/Tahsildar on the basis of the prescribed qualifications mentioned in the existing special rules, if their promotion to the feeder category was as per the rules then existing. W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** All the writ appeals are disposed of with consequential reliefs. **J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE** **P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** **cl** W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 7 **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N. RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------------W.A.NOS.548, 614, 617 & 630 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18[th] day of March, 2008.** ## **O R D E R** ## **Balakrishnan Nair, J:** Admit. Government Pleader took notice for the respondents. ## **W.A.NOS.548, 578, 614, 617 & 630 of 2008** When these writ appeals were almost fully heard, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government may be given a chance to deal with the contention of some of the appellants that they were never sent for Chain Survey Training. File statement or affidavit in all these writ appeals dealing with the above point and if so advised, on any other relevant points also. The additional pleadings shall be filed within ten days. Call on 03.04.2008 for disposal. ## **K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE** ## **P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** W.A.NO.548/08 & CON.CASES . 8 ## **cl**