P. M. Kurian and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.27203 OF 2012(A)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 P.M.KURIAN AGED 50 YEARS** - **SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM** - **2 JOSE PRAKASH SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM** - **3 M.SEBASTIAN SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,ALAPPUZHA** - **4 VIJAYALAKSHMI K V SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR,(SPECIL GRADE) DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,ERNAKULAM** - **5 SABU ABRAHAM JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,IDUKKI** - **6 MANOJ KUMAR M V SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM** - **7 SHAJI K ABRAHAM** - **JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOTTAYAM** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001** - **2 THE KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD VENCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY** - **3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695004** - **4 SMT.M.G.GIRIJA STORE SUPEINTENDENT/GODOWN MANAGER, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDSUTRIES OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001** - **5 SMT.BATTY MATHEW JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688001** - **6 SMT.MARY VIRJIN JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM695035** - **7 SRI.V.P.VIJAYAKUMAR JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT , DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001** - **8 SRI.S.ANIL KUMAR JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE,KOLLAM-691001** - **9 SRI.SHAJI JACOB, KHADI DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ELANTHOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689643** - **10 MR.DOMINIC JOHN, JUNIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA- 688001.** - **11 MR.K.S.SEBASTIAN,(CORRECTED) VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER/STATISTICAL OFFICER, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695035. (THE NAME OF THE ADDITIONAL 11TH RESPONDENT CORRECTED AS 'K.J.SEBASTIAN' INSTEAD OF K.S.SEBASTIAN AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.5487 OF 2014).** - **12 MR.HARIKUMAR, VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER/SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695035.** - **13 MR.SREEKANDAN NAIR, JUNIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE** **INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695035.** - **14 MR.ANTO SEBASTIAN, VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA-689643.** - **15 SMT.C.K.KUMARI, ASST.REGISTRAR, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.** - **16 MR.HASSAN KUNJI, VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICER, PAYYANNUR KHADI CENTRE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.** - **17 T.C.MADHAVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PROJECT OFFICER/PROJECT MANAGER, KHADI PROCESSING CENTRE, ETTUKUDUKKA, PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.** - **18 MR.K.S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, SENIOR ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOTTAYAM- 686001.** - **19 MR.RAJAN UNNITHAN, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.** - **20 MR.JOY MATHEW,** - **JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, RAM NAGAR, ANANDA ASHRAMAM, KANJANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.** - **21 MR.V.P.SUBRAMANIAN,** - **JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM.** - **22 MR.K.MURALI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **23 MR.P.SAJEEV,** - **JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **24 SMT.K.O.KRISHNAKUMARI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, UPPALM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **25 MR.JOMY GEORGE, (CORRECTED) JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.(THE** **NAME OF THE ADDITIONAL 25TH RESPONDENT CORRECTED AS 'JOMY JOSEPH' INSTEAD OF 'JOMY GEORGE' AS PER ORDER DATED 23.10.2014 IN I.A.NO.5487 OF 2014).** **26 SHAGUBA BAI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. (ADDITIONAL R10 TO R26 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.12.2013 IN I.A.NO.16705 OF 2013).** **BY ADV.BIJOY CHANDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY ADV. M.SHARAFUDDIN SC BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN BY ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SC, KERALA KHADI AMP VILLAGE INDUSTRIES B BY ADV. SRI.L.VANCHEESWARAN BY ADV. M.SHARAFUDDIN SC** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR,SC,KHADI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 ## **JUDGMENT** Senior Co-operative Inspectors and Junior Co-operative Inspectors working in the District Khadi and Village Industries Office have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by Ext.P5 Regulations on the ground that it reduces their promotional avenues and opportunities and are violative of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 34 of the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1957 framed the Kerala Khadi and Village Industries (Classification and Conditions of Recruitment of Staff) Recruitment Regulations, 2004 in supersession of the 1969 Regulations. The case of the petitioners is that till the regulations were amended in 2004 they were having sufficient promotional avenues and that consequent to amendment their promotional avenues are reduced. It is stated that initially when discussions were being held before issuance of new regulations persons like petitioners in the category of Senior/Junior Co-operative Inspectors were having various promotional avenues; under new regulations senior W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Co-operative Inspectors are removed from the feeder category for the post of Village Industries Officers, on account of which petitioners lost these promotional posts. It is stated that while the petitioners lost their opportunities for promotion to the cadre of Village Industries Officers, their opportunity for promotion to the cadre of Accounts Officers was also considerably reduced by the new recruitment regulation by including many other cadres in the feeder category of the Accounts Officer and Deputy Registrar etc. According to them new regulation had included several categories in the feeder category, including the categories, the incumbents of which would not have any experience at all in accounting. The petitioners pointed out that they are graduates and all those posts which are available for promotion required only SSLC qualification. Therefore they apprehend that their scope for promotion ends at the post of District Officer/Project Officer. It is pointed out that they had submitted Ext.P1 representation when the Board had called for their suggestions. Though they submitted their representations the suggestions put forward by them are not seen considered while issuing new regulations. 3. The Government have filed counter affidavit. It is ## W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** stated that promotion channel of Junior Cooperative Inspector is Senior Cooperative Inspector >> Senior Cooperative Inspector (Special Grade) >> and Assistant Registrar. Assistant Registrar is the feeder category for the post of Project Officer which in turn, is the feeder category for the post of Deputy Director and Director. It is also stated that the post of Assistant Registrar is the only feeder category for promotion to the post of Senior Co-operative Inspector (Special Grade) for which there are 10 posts whereas the number of posts of Senior Cooperative Inspectors (Special Grade) is only 8. It is also stated that two posts of Junior Accounts Officer are also available for promotion from the post of Senior Cooperative Inspectors (Special Grade). Therefore it is stated that there is no reduction in the promotion chances of the petitioners. It is also their case that amendments to Classification and Conditions of Recruitment of Staff Regulations, 1985 were made solely to maintain a balance in the promotional avenues for different categories of posts in Boards' service. It is stated that the ratio of promotion to the post of Village Industries Officer was also altered with this intention. It is stated that Ext.P5 regulation came into force on 21.08.2006 and petitioners ## W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 :8: have enjoyed several promotions under these revised regulations. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the apex court in _**Food Corporation of India and others vs. Parashotam Das Bansal and Others : 2008 KHC 4183 = (2008) 5 SCC 100 and Dr.O.Z.Hussain vs. Union of India and others : AIR 1990 SC 311 : 1990 KHC 673**_ and argued that employees are entitled to promotional avenues and such avenues cannot be reduced. 5. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel argued that the employees do not have any fundamental right to be promoted to a higher post. Relying on the judgments of this Court in _**Damodara Kurup vs. State of Kerala and others : 1976 KLT 802 and Rajasekharan Pillai S.**_ and _**others v. Union of India and others : 2016 (5) KHC 272(DB)**_ the learned Government Pleader argued that reduction in chances for promotion cannot be a ground to interfere with Recruitment Rules. ## 6. In _**Food Corporation of India's case (Supra)**_ the apex court held that when an employee is denied opportunity for promotion for long years on the ground that he is not included in the feeder category proper directions should be issued by the Court. In the judgment in _**Dr.O.Z.Hussain's**_ W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 **==> picture [19 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** _**case (supra),**_ the apex court held that provision for promotion increases efficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. In the judgment in _**Damodara Kurup's**_ case this Court held that introduction of special rules varying the ratio of promotion thereby affecting the chances of promotion even if adversely affects the persons who are already in service, cannot be a reason to interfere with the rules. It was held that though it would affect chances of promotion it would not affect the right to be considered for promotion as and when they become entitled for the same in accordance with rules. 7. It is also settled position that it is for the employer to decide in accordance with the conditions prevailing in the establishment and with the intention to enhance the quality in service to frame rules under which the appointments are to be made. The authority to determine the manner in which and the method by which appointment is to be made including the qualification required for appointment to each post in an establishment, vests with the employer, who is well versed with its requirements, as held by the apex court in _**Maharashtra Public Service Commission v. Sandeep Shriram Warade and Others**_ **:(2019) 6** W.P.(C) No.27203/2012 **==> picture [25 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **SCC 362.** 8. Therefore, it is seen that petitioners are not deprived of their promotional avenues; there had been only certain modifications. While excluding the petitioners from certain categories, they are included in the feeder category of certain other posts. Therefore on the ground that their promotion post is not included in the feeder category for promotion as Village Industries Officer, it cannot be said to be a reason to declare that Ext.P5 regulations violates any of the fundamental rights. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.V.ASHA** rkc **JUDGE** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 16.03.2012**| |---|---| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.KB.6936/97/E1(B)**| ||**DATED 21.08.2012 ISSUED BY R2.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF SUGGESTIONS DATED NIL**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION DATED**| ||**29.06.1985 ISSUED BY R2 (KERALA KHADI AND**| ||**VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD (CLASSIFICATION**| ||**AND**<br>**CONDITIONS**<br>**OF**<br>**RECRUITMENT**<br>**OF**| ||**STAFF)AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1985 WITH**| ||**RELEVANT DETAILS.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**NOTIFICATION**| ||**NO.KB.6936/97/E1(B) DATED NIL ALONG WITH**| ||**RELEVANT DETAILS (KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE**| ||**INDUSTRIES BOARD (CLASSIFICATION AND**| ||**CONDITIONS OF RECRUITMENT OF STAFF)**| ||**AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1985 BY R2.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE**<br>**COPY**<br>**OF**<br>**PROCEEDINGS**| ||**NO.KB.1066/2014/E1(A) DATED 04.02.2014 BY**| ||**R2.**|