RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. SUNOJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals involve a single point for adjudication and, therefore, are taken up together for disposal. Challenge in all these appeals relate to a common judgment passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ applications, namely, O. P. Nos. 3550,15115/96 and 12398/97. in all the original Petitions, the effect of amendment brought in by the Kerala Technical education Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989 (in short 'amendment Rules, 1989') in relation to the appointment of Lecturers/ Post Diploma Lecturers was under consideration. Petitioners in the aforesaid applications were Diploma holders, who, inter alia, sought for a declaration that the prescription of degree qualification for promotion to the post of Lecturers as brought in by way of amendment of Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules, 1969 (in short'rules') is unsustainable and consequently a prayer was made for a direction to the State functionaries to promote them as Lecturers without insisting upon degree qualification. The amendment which was questioned reads as follows: In fact, it was not so much the prescription of the qualification, but the effect of Clause which was assailed. The same reads as follows: " (5) Nothing contained in the Kerala Technical education Service (Amendment) Rules, 1989 shall apply to those in the feeder category to the above post who are already in service before the date of commencement of the said rules. But the personnel promoted, if any during the interim period (i. e. , from 23. 9. 1984 to the date of issue of this order) shall not be adversely affected. "

(2.) LEARNED Single Judge by the impugned judgment held that it was not a requirement that those in the feeder category should be in that category before commencement of the Rules, which were made operative retrospectively with effect from 23. 9. 1984. It was held that the requirements were complied with if they were already in service on the relevant date i. e. , 23. 9. 1984.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge has, with reference to Clause (5)extracted above, observed that the intention of the provision cannot be read to mean that only persons belonging to the feeder category are covered by the requirement to be in service before the commencement of the Rules on 23. 9. 1984. He has further observed that had that been the intention, the language used would have been different.