Daniel v. State Of Kerala

Bhaskaran, A.C.J:— The challenge in this writ petition is directed against exihibit P 2 Government Order G.O (P) No. 100/80.H. Edn., dated 1 July, 1980, whereunder a quota for promotion to the post of general foreman and senior foreman binding, have been fixed in the ratio 1:1 between the certificate holders on the one part and the diploma holders in Printing Technology on the other, In the writ petition there are three petitioners. The third petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and the releif now sought for is only as regards to petitioners 1 and 2.

2. The first petitioner entered service as printer on 17 April, 1959. On 6 August, 1962, he was promoted as assistant foreman machine, on 1 January, 1966, as junior foreman and 13 October, 1971, as senior foreman.

The next promotion which he is entitled to get is that of general foreman.

3. The second petitioner entered service as a binder on 12 February, 1954. He was promoted as an assistant foreman binding on 28 December, 1964, and as junior foreman on 3 October, 1972. and the next to which he is to be promoted as senior foreman. By a Government order in 1957, the qualification for the posts right up to junior foreman was fixed as K.G.T.E or M.G.T.E In 1976 special rules were framed. S.R.O No. 1030/76 in G.O (P) 327/76.PD. dated 22 September, 1976. which laid down the qualification as diploma in printing for promotion to the category of general foreman and senior foreman and it is by exhibit P2 Government Order G.O (P) 100/80.H. Edn., dated 1 July, 1980, the ratio of promotion between the certificate holders and diploma holders in the ratio of 1: 1 has been fixed.

4. As already noticed the challenge in the writ petition is directed against exhibit P2 Government order.

5. In the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in (1974) 1 SCC 19 : A.I.R 1974 S C. 1, (1975) 3 SCC 76 : A.I.R 1974 S C. 1631, 1983 K.L.T 987, 1983 K.L.T 878. 1981(2) Kerala 527 and 1975 K. L T. 1, we have no doubt at all that this classification on miscroscopic distinction could not be allowed. We would, therefore, strike down the notes to branch Nos. 1 and 9 named in exhibit P2:

“Note.— Promotion of persons qualified under items 2 (a) and 2(b) above shall be made in the ratio 1:1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under item 2(a). If no person qualified under item 2(a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under item 2(b) and vice versa:

Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be supereseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of turn under the ratio of 1:1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the senior diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy.

(8) in branch No. 9

Note.— promotion of person qualified under items 2(a) and 2(b) above shall be made in the ratio 1: 1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under item 2(a). If no person qualified under item 2(a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under item 2(b) and vice versa:

Provided that no senior diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of the turn under the ratio 1:1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the senior diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy”.

Promotion if any to which the petitioners are entitled will be made on a review of position in the light of statute as early as possible.

6. This original petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs.

7. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the Government Pleader made an oral submission for leave to appeal the Supreme Court. We do not think any substantial question oi law of general importance is involved in this case to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence leave is declined.