High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2008-01-07Disposed of

S. Saji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 33962/2006

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: S. Siri Jagan
Judgment Date: 2008-01-07
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of. The court finds no merit in the challenge to Exts. P4, P5 and P6; while there are vacancies for Assistant Works Manager, the petitioner shall be considered for those vacancies in accordance with his present seniority and merit in the feeder cadre, and as and when promotions to such vacancies are made. The matter is disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

S. Saji

Respondents

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Chairman-Cum-Managing Director
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, KSRTC, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
The Departmental Promotion Committee, KSRTC, Transport Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
V.J. Saju, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC, Edappal (Tyres), Edappal
Rajan Mundayil, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC, Kozhikode
Easter Yashik, Pumba Special Officer, KSRTC, Pumba, Pathanamthitta
K.G. Sudheer, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram Central, Thiruvananthapuram
P.T. Padmalal, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC R/W, Kozhikode
A. David, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC, Central Works, Pappanamcode, Thiruvananthapuram
M. Isaac Mathew, Asst. Works Manager, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram City, Thiruvananthapuram
Addl. R11: State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government Transport Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Elvin Peter P.J.

Counsels for Respondents

• Shri Johnson P. John, SC, KSRTC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition concerns S. Saji, an Assistant Depot Engineer with KSRTC, challenging extents P4, P5 and P6 which denied restoration of his original seniority and permitted promotion of eight juniors ahead of him to the post of Depot Engineer. In 2000, disciplinary proceedings were initiated for misconduct causing loss to the Corporation, resulting in punishment initially of barring increments; on appeal, this was converted into a censure with recovery of Rs. 9,000. Thereafter, because of this punishment, Saji was overlooked for promotion to Depot Engineer and was eventually promoted only on 5.11.2005, after several juniors had already been promoted. He sought restoration of his seniority prior to the disciplinary action and challenge to the seniority impact of the penalties. He relied on the Supreme Court’s Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109, arguing that penalties should not be used to back-date or distort promotion; the KSRTC contended that even if the punishment did not bar promotion, it could be taken into account for assessing merit in a selection post and that the petitioner's denial of seniority was proper given the meritorious position of others. The court held that considering the punishment in merit is permissible but noted that Jankiraman’s decision is not controlling for this case. The writ petition was disposed of, with no merit in the challenge to Exts. P4–P6, while directing consideration for future vacancies of Assistant Works Manager based on current seniority and merit.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

An employee has no right to promotion; he has only a right to be considered for promotion.
Promotion to a post—especially a selection post—depends on merit and other circumstances; denial of promotion based on past conduct is permissible.
Public administration requires that penalties and past misconduct be considered in promotion decisions; an unblemished record is desirable to ensure efficient administration.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that since the punishment imposed was a censure with recovery and not a barring of promotion, KSRTC erred in overlooking him for promotion. Exts. P4–P6 denying restoration of his seniority are improper; he seeks restoration of his original seniority and promotion to Depot Engineer as per his feeder cadre seniority. He relies on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 to argue that penalties should not be used to deny promotion retrospectively and that he is entitled to be considered rather than receive back-dated promotion. He requests consideration for any vacancies of Assistant Works Manager based on his current seniority and merit. Ext. P3 had directed consideration of his claim; he challenges Exts. P5–P6 as misapplied.

Contentions of Respondents

KSRTC submits that although the punishment did not bar promotion, it can be taken into account for assessing merit in a selection post; eight juniors were promoted ahead of him, so denial of restoration of seniority reflects merit. The Government’s orders Exts. P5 and P6 were proper in aligning with competitive merit. They rely on Jankiraman’s principle that a penalty may influence promotion decisions and that a mere expectation of automatic promotion is not guaranteed.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others	[(1991) 4 SCC 109]	Distinguished	The court notes that the Jankiraman decision is not controlling for the present case and distinguishes it in view of the facts and arguments before it.

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 S. Saji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Others 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 S.SIRI JAGAN** **MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929** **WP(C).No. 33962 of 2006(R)** **------------------------------------** **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **S. SAJI, DEPOT ENGINEER, K.S.R.T.C., VIZHINJAM DEPOT., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST.** **BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.** **RESPONDENTS:** - **----------------------** **1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **2. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.** **4. V.J. SAJU, ASST.WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC, EDAPPAL (TYRES),EDAPPAL** **5. RAJAN MUNDAYIL, ASST. WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC, KOZHIKODE.** **6. EASTER YASHIK, PUMBA SPECIAL OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C, PUMBA, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.** **7. K.G.SUDHEER, ASST.WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CENTRAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **8. P.T. PADMALAL, ASST. WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC R/W, KOZHIKODE.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.33962/2006** ## **9. A. DAVID,** **ASST.WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC, CENTRAL WORKS, PAPPANAMCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **10. M. ISAAC MATHEW,** **ASST.WORKS MANAGER, KSRTC,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **ADDL.R11 IMPLEADED** **ADDL.R11:STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT DEPT., GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R11 AS PER ORDER DT. 5.2.07 IN IA. 1540/07.** **BY ADV. SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C) NO.33962/2006** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 98.9.05 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.** **EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 5.11.0P5 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.** **EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 15.6.06 IN WPC. 15405/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1.2.7.06 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.** **EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26TH SEPT. 2006 ISSUED BY THE KSRTC.** **EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.1.07 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 24.2.75 ISSUED BY THE GOVT.** **EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 21.3.74 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.** **EXT.R1(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26.9.06.** _**/**_ **TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **tss** S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ====================== W.P.(C).No.33962 of 2006 ====================== Dated this the 7[th] day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner entered the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as an Assistant Depot Engineer in 1995. In the year 2000, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in respect of certain misconducts involving loss to the Corporation. Originally he was imposed with the punishment of barring of increments. In appeal it was converted into censure with recovery of an amount of Rs.9000/- as loss caused to the Corporation on account of his misconduct. Later on, it appears that, taking into account this punishment, the petitioner was overlooked for promotion as Depot Engineer and several of his juniors were promoted ahead of the petitioner to that post. The petitioner was promoted as Depot Engineer only with effect from 5.11.2005. The petitioner approached this court seeking restoration of his seniority as originally obtaining prior to his punishment. This court, by Ext.P3 judgment, directed the Corporation to consider his claim. Ext.P5 order was passed holding that since his juniors were selected from a select list prior to his promotion as Depot Engineer on 5.11.2005, he is not w.p.c.33962/06 2 eligible for restoration of his original seniority. This was confirmed by the Government in Ext.P6. In the meanwhile, eight of his juniors were promoted as Assistant Works Manager who were promoted as Depot Engineer earlier to the petitioner, as per Ext.P4 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P4, P5 and P6 orders in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner's contention is that in so far as the punishment of barring of promotion is one of the punishments prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and the petitioner has not been imposed with a punishment of barring of promotion, he could not have been overlooked for promotion as Depot Engineer based on the punishment of censure and recovery of loss, and therefore, he should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Works Manager as per his original seniority prior to the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in _**UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. K.V.JANKIRAMAN AND OTHERS**_ [(1991) 4 SCC 109]. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSRTC w.p.c.33962/06 3 submits that although the punishment of barring of promotion has not been imposed on the petitioner, the Corporation was entitled to take into account that punishment also while considering the comparative merits of the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Depot Engineer, which is a selection post, which only has been done by the Corporation. Therefore, once he has been overlooked for the selection post of Depot Engineer, he cannot get his seniority restored as obtaining prior to his disciplinary proceedings. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am of opinion that simply because the punishment of barring of promotion has not been imposed on the petitioner, the Corporation is not disentitled to take into account the punishment also while assessing the comparative merit among the eligible candidates in the feeder category for the purpose promotion. In fact eight juniors mentioned in Ext.P4 had been promoted in the post of Depot Engineer ahead of the petitioner, since on assessment of comparative merit, they were found to be more meritorious than the petitioner for the post of Depot Engineer. 4 w.p.c.33962/06 Therefore, the petitioner was overlooked in the earlier selection to the post of Depot Engineer and the petitioner was selected only subsequently and appointed on 5.11.2005. Such taking into account the punishment imposed on the petitioner does not amount to imposition of barring of promotion on the petitioner. The petitioner has not challenged those promotions also. According to me, that is exactly what has been approved in the decision of _**JANKIRAMAN's case**_ (supra). Paragraph 29 of the said judgment, which reads as follows, is clear in this regard. “29. According to us, the Tribunal has erred in holding that when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, an imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion should be given to the officer from the original date even when penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On principle, for the same reasons, the officer cannot be rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to be considered for promotion. The promotion to a post and more so, to a selection post, depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. That is the minimum expected to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An employee found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected of any administration is that it does not reward an employee with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his conduct before that date he is penalised in praesenti. When an employee is 5 w.p.c.33962/06 held guilty and penalised and is therefore, not promoted at least till the date on which he is penalised, he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his whole record has to be taken into a consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If, further, the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is not right in striking down the said portion of the second sub-paragraph after clause ( _iii_ ) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said findings of the Tribunal.” In fact that decision is against the petitioner's case. Therefore, I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to claim seniority over the persons promoted ahead of him in the cadre of Depot Engineer for the purpose of subsequent promotion as Asst. Works Manager as claimed by him now. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the challenge against Exts. P4, P5 and P6. 6. However, the counsel for the petitioner submits that now there are vacancies of Assistant Works Manager and he may be considered for promotion to those vacancies. I am of opinion that that is a reasonable request. As and when the respondents intend to make promotion to any vacancies of Assistant Works w.p.c.33962/06 6 Manager hereinafter, the petitioner shall also be considered in accordance with his present seniority in the cadre of Depot Manager, and merits, since the same is also a selection post. With the above observations this writ petition is disposed of. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE