High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of: Original Petition rejected; matter...

OP(KAT) No. 377 of 2015

Case / Petition Number:OP(KAT) No. 377 of 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • K. Vinod Chandran
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2020-03-11
Court Decision / Holding
Original Petition is rejected without deciding the merits of the promotion ratio dispute; the matter can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
Final Disposition
Disposed of: Original Petition rejected; matter not decided on merits and may be pursued in appropriate proceedings.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Dr. G. Bindu

Respondents

  • Lalithakumari K.K.
  • Dr. Arts K. Purushothaman
  • S. Sreekumar
  • State of Kerala (represented by Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department)
  • The Director, Ground Water Department
  • The Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) represented by its Convenor, Secretary to Government, Water Resources (Ground Water) Department

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Elvin P. Peter
  • • K. R. Ganesh
  • • T. G. Sunil (Pranavam)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • S. Aneesh
  • • P. Nandakumar
  • • T. Rajasekharan Nair (Govt. Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Original Petition (OP) challenges the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dismissing OA 113/2014 on 18 August 2015. The petitioner, Dr. G. Bindu (4th respondent in the OA), contends that the central issue is the correct ratio for promotion to the post of District Officer in the Ground Water Department. The petition asserts that the DPC initially proposed a ratio of 7:6:1 among Senior Hydro Geologists, Executive Engineers, and Senior Geophysicists, but the minutes of the DPC (as used for the promotion in the interim) reflected 6:6:2. It is argued that the Tribunal did not decide the merits and that the outcome of the case should be determined on the ratio dispute, especially since the interim order promoted the first respondent based on that ratio. The petition cites Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 437 to contend that if the OA is closed without resolving merits, the interim relief’s benefit may be withdrawn. The respondents argue that the DPC’s 6:6:2 ratio governs promotion, that the first respondent’s promotion followed from the interim order, and that the petition is unnecessary and could be adjudicated in separate proceedings. The High Court ultimately rejects the petition without deciding the merits, declaring that the issue can be resolved in appropriate proceedings.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition argues that the ratio for promotion to District Officer in the Ground Water Department should be 7:6:1, not the 6:6:2 used by the DPC for promotions. The Tribunal’s failure to decide merits and the reliance on interim orders are challenged. The interim order, promoting the first respondent, should be revisited if the OA is closed without merits, following Kalabharati's principle that interim relief’s benefit may be withdrawn when merits are not adjudicated.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the DPC applied a 6:6:2 ratio and that the first respondent’s promotion resulted from the interim order. They argue the petition is unnecessary and can be resolved in separate proceedings, noting there is already a separate challenge to the promotion elsewhere and that the Tribunal’s order merely directed consequential promotions as per AnnexureA1."

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors.(2010) 9 SCC 437PositiveCited to support withdrawing interim relief when a matter is disposed of without addressing merits; used to justify negating the interim benefit in this case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP(KAT) No. 377 of 2015 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941** **OP(KAT).No.377 OF 2015** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 113/2014 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18.8.2015** ## **PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OA:** **DR.G.BINDU AGED 47 YEARS HYDRO GEOLOGIST, DIRECTORATE OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALAVINJAN BHAWAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)** ## **RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN THE OA:** **1 LALITHAKUMARI K.K., AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.C.V.SOMAN, GEOPHYSICIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030, RESIDING AT SRUTHI HOUSE, KARUKACHAL P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 540.** **2 DR.ARTS K.PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O.P.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, JUNIOR GEOPHYSICIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,SITHARAM MILL LANE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-68002, RESIDING AT ALEKATT HOUSE, MONASTERY ROAD, KOCHI-682011** **3 S.SREEKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.M.K.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, JUNIOR GEOPHYSICIST DISTRICT OFFICE, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 RESIDING AT “SAROVARAM”, SNRA C 114, VENCHAVODE, CHEMPAZHANTHY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 587.** **4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER** O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 2 # **RESOURCES (GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **5 THE DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALAVIJNAN BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.** - **6 THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER) REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES (GROUND WATER) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANEESH R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR R4-6 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR** **THIS OP (KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## _**Vinod Chandran, J.**_ The Original Petition has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal refused to consider the issue on merits and that the ratio between Senior Hydro Geologists, Executive Engineers and Senior Geophysicists was the crux of the issue raised by the petitioner/respondent in the O.A, which the Tribunal did not look into. 2. The specific case of the petitioners was that the ratio for promotion to the post of District Officers in the Ground Water Department was 7:6:1. The ratio based on which the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'the DPC') carried out the promotion was 6:6:2. It is also submitted that only because of the interim order, promotion was granted to the first respondent/1[st] applicant in the O.A. If the O.A is permitted to be closed without deciding the merits O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 4 of the claim; necessarily the benefit of the interim order should also be taken away as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ## _**Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath**_ _**Narichania & Ors.**_ [(2010) 9 SCC 437]. 3. The Original Application was filed by the first respondent along with two others for the purpose of promoting her to the post of District Officer especially considering the fact that she had the first rank in the DPC convened for the said selection. The interim order is extracted by the Tribunal which only directs consequential promotion orders to be issued based on AnnexureA1. It is pertinent that there was no direction to promote the first respondent who was the applicant in the Original Application nor even a direction to consider her for promotion. The direction was only to issue consequential promotion orders as per the DPC minutes. The Government had issued such promotion orders and the first respondent stood promoted. It is also admitted that as of O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 5 now, the first respondent has retired from service. It is submitted that there is a separate case filed by the petitioner herein challenging the promotion. Definitely, the issue could be considered in that case. The present Original Petition is unnecessary. We, hence, reject the same without deciding on the merits of the matter and also on the ratio asserted by either of the parties; which can be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings. **Sd/-** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** pkk **JUDGE** O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 6 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OA 113/2014 FILED BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE G.O DATED 19.5.93.** - **EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OA 113/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE MA FOR AMENDING THE OA 113/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3.** - **EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE MA FOR DIRECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OA 113/14.** - **EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 6.6.14 IN OA 113/14.** - **EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.15 IN OA 113/14 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.** - **EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 2010 (9) SCC 437.** - **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.21/93/LR. D DATED 19/05/1993.** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE 9TH PAY REVISION COMMISSION REPORT DATED 31/12/2010.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.85/2011/FIN. DATED 26/02/2011.** **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY ASSOCIATION OF THE GROUND WATER GEOPHYSICISTS DATED 02/05/2011 BEFORE R1.** O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 7 **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY ASSOCIATION OF THE GROUND WATER GEOPHYSICISTS DATED 09/01/2012 BEFORE R1.** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY ASSOCIATION OF THE GROUND WATER GEOPHYSICISTS DATED 29/02/2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/04/2012 FILED BY SRI. K.N.SURESH KUMAR.** - **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 01/06/2012 IN OA NO.896/2012.** - **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 30/06/2012. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 21/10/2010 M.A. FOR JOINING TOGETHER.** - **ANNEXURE R4(A) TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.19/2010/WRD DATED 29/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(B) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.31/2008/WRD DATED 05/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(C) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.900/09/WRD DATED 04/08/2009 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(D) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF PAGES 1 AND 233 OF THE PAY COMMISSION REPORT DEALING WITH THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(E) TRUE COPY OF NOTE FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE CONVENER OF DPC.** - **ANNEXURE R4(F) TRUE COPY OF GO (RT) NO.368/2013/WRD DATED 02/04/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(G) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.952/2012/WRD DATED 03/08/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** O.P.(KAT)No. 377 of 2015 8 - **ANNEXURE R4(H) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1228/13/WRD DATED 20/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1T RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(I) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1388/2013/WRD DATED 31/12/2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(J) TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.1166/2012/WRD DATED 28/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(K) TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.24495/GW1/13/WRD DATED 31/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE R4(L) TRUE COPY OF PROPOSAL DATED 01/02/2014 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.** - **ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF GO DATED 25/04/2014. ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF OPINION DATED 07/07/2011 OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.** - **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF UO NOTE DATED 07/02/2013. ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF OPINION DATED 03/04/2014 OF THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT.**