K VISWAMBHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the Kerala High court in Writ Appeal No. 629 of 1987, dated 4/4/1989/5/4/19899. It appears that the appellant was originally selected and appointed as Teacher in the District of Calicut in the year 1961. Subsequently, he applied, pursuant to an advertisement, for the post of Teacher in the District of Quilon in the year 1963. He was selected and appointed as a Teacher in Quilon District in 1963. It is common ground that the seniority of Teachersis maintained district-wise. But for further promotion, it is on the basis of the seniority list drawn State-wise. The question that was raised before the High a court was whether the services rendered by the appellant in Calicut District in the year 1961-63 can be carried forward and counted along with the services in Quilon District from 1963. The services of the appellant, in fact, were counted for the purpose of State-wise seniority only from the year 1963 when he started serving in Quilon District. Aggrieved by that, the appellant moved the High court and the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. However, the division bench, on appeal, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the basis of an interpretation given to Rule 38 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958.

(2.) Mr. P. S. Poti, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that there is a distinction between transfer from one district to another and appointment in one district in the first instance and the appointment in another district and the interpretation placed by the division bench on Rule 38 was not correct. According to the learned counsel, unless the appellant is shown that he has relinquished his rights in writing as required in Rule 38, the services of the appellant rendered as a Teacher in Calicut District should be taken into account and added to the services rendered by the appellant in Quilon District. The view taken by the division bench that the relinquishment need not always be in writing and the same can be inferred, cannot be sustained. The division bench, while interpreting Rule 38, observed as follows:

(3.) We are of the view that no exception can be taken to the view expressed by the division bench and we agree with the reasons given by the division bench as above. As we agree with the reasons given by the division bench on the interpretation of Rule 38, the consequences will be that the view taken by the division bench, on facts, will hold good. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.