V. Ramachandran v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/24TH POUSHA, 1937 WA.No. 2547 of 2015 IN WP(C).29043/2013 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29043/2013 DATED 09-10-2015 ................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ----------------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN AGED 52 YEARS ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST CENTRAL LABORATORY, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM PIN-682020, S/O.D.VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT "VAASTHUKAM" KRA 40-A, KANCHIYOORKONAM, KATTAKADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695572. BY ADVS.SMT.A.G.ANEETHA SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SMT.MIJI JOHN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLAMOODU JUNCTION PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 2. THE MEMBER SECRETARY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PLAMOODU JUNCTION ALSO CONVENER DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. 3. K.V MOHAMMED VAHIDUDEEN SHANAVAS ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE CENTRE, ELOOR UDHYOGAMANDAL P.O., PIN-685301. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. WA.No. 2547 of 2015 IN WP(C).29043/2013 -------------------------------------------------- 5. K.V GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 54 YEARS - ASST. ENVIORNMENTAL SCIENTIST ENVIORNMENTAL SURVEILANCE CENTRE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ELOOR, S/O. LATE K.V BALAKRISHNAN, 'AISWARYA' CHETTIPADY P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 319. R1 & R2 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R3 & R5 BY SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED SHIRAZ R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 2547 of 2015 IN WP(C).29043/2013 -------------------------------------------------- APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE NO.425 OF BOARD RULES, 1986 (SHOWING RULE 30). RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE ## **ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 2547 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14[th] day of January, 2016 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Shaffique, J.** This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.29043 of 2013 challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2015 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs : “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing Ext.P11 select list and Ext.P17 order of promotion of 3[rd] respondent to the post of Environmental Scientist in the Pollution Control Board, calling for records if necessary. II. To issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's qualification for promotion to the post of Environmental Scientist, and or as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and ” proper. 2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the petitioner has a Post Graduate Diploma in W.A. No. 2547 of 2015 ## -:2:- Analytical Chemistry of Institution of Chemists (India). She was working in the post of Assistant Environmental Scientist in the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. According to her, she was working in the same post for the last 13 years and next promotion post is Environmental Scientist. The qualification prescribed for the post of Environmental Scientist in terms of Ext.P16 Notification i.e. Kerala State Pollution Control Board Subordinate Service Regulations, 1999 is a Second Class Master's degree with 50% marks in any branches of Chemistry/Life Science/Environmental Science/Environmental Studies. According to the petitioner, though she did not have the said qualification, her qualification has to be considered equivalent to M.Sc (Chemistry). It is contended that she was given promotion to the post of Assistant Environmental Scientist taking into account the said fact and therefore the same principle ought to have been made applicable to the promotion post as well. The contention is that the 3[rd] respondent, junior to the petitioner, was promoted to the post of Environmental Scientist without considering the petitioner's equivalent qualification. W.A. No. 2547 of 2015 -:3:- 3. The learned Single Judge after considering the entire matter including the factual issues involved in the matter dismissed the writ petition observing that when the petitioner does not have the qualification as prescribed in Ext.P16, she cannot claim right to be promoted to the said post. 4. It was _inter alia_ contended by learned counsel for the appellant that her qualification has to be treated as equivalent to the Master Degree. In so far as the Special Rules does not indicate that any equivalent degree to be treated as equivalent to M.Sc degree, we do not think that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in taking a view that the qualification of the petitioner cannot be treated as that of M.Sc degree. 5. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner is that there is no avenue for promotion. In fact the post of Assistant Environmental Scientist is a feeder category to the post of Environmental Scientist and merely for the reason that the petitioner is not qualified does not mean that the lower post has no avenue for promotion. She does not have the qualification as ## W.A. No. 2547 of 2015 ## -:4:- prescribed in the Rules and she cannot be considered to the promotion post. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in **T.R. Kothandaraman and others v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply & Drainage BD and others** [(1994) 6 SCC 282], **Food Corporation of India and others v. Parashotam Das Bansal and others** [(2008) 5 SCC 100] and **Panchraj Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and others** [(2014) 5SCC 101]. Having gone through the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court, we do not think that the said judgments can be made applicable in the facts situation of this case. In this case the entitlement for promotion by the petitioner is covered by Ext.P16 Regulation. She is not qualified as per Ext.P16 and in the absence of any challenge to the said Regulation, this Court cannot take a different view in the matter. 7. Though learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Rule 26A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975, we do not think that the said Rule has any W.A. No. 2547 of 2015 ## -:5:- application to the fact situation. Rule 26A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975,of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975, reads as follows: “ **26A** . Persons possessing the following qualifications are eligible for appointment as Government Analysts or as Board analysts under sub-section (1) or sub-section(3), as the case may be, of section 53, namely: Essential:- (i) M.Sc Degree in Chemistry or equivalent or Bachelor Degree in Chemical Engineering or Bio-chemical Engineering; and (ii) 10 years' experience in analysis of water, sewage or industrial wastes in teaching, research or Government Laboratory. Desirable.- (i) Doctorate Degree in Chemistry or Bio-chemistry or Master's Degree in Chemical Engineering or Bio-chemical Engineering; (ii) Evidence of published papers in the field.” The said Rule only indicates about the 'essential and desirable qualifications' for appointment as Government Analysts which does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to get promotion over looking the 1999 Regulations. W.A. No. 2547 of 2015 -:6:- Under such circumstances, we do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single Judge. No grounds have been made out to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.** Sd/- **A.M. Shaffique, Judge.** ttb/15/01