VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while working as Assistant Engineer in the p. W. D. went on leave without allowance with effect from 11. 12. 1997. THE petitioner rejoined duty after cancelling the un availed portion of the leave on 27. 5. 1999. THE D. P. C. met to prepare the select lists for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99. By Ext. P3 the lists were approved by the Government. THE petitioner was excluded from the list of 1998-99. In reply to the representation filed by the petitioner against the above dispute he was informed by Ext. P8 that the petitioner rejoined duty only on 25. 5. 1999 and therefore under R. 28 (4a) of KS & SSR the petitioner had to complete one year from 25. 5. 1999 before his name could be considered for inclusion in the select list. It is Ext. P8 that is under challenge in the Original Petition. According to Sub-cl. V4a) of R. 28 (b) (i) of ks & SSR where Confidential Reports for the three years mentioned in sub-cl. (4) are not available, the suitability of the officer shall be assessed in the case of an officer who was on long leave on the basis of Confidential reports for a period of three years excluding the period during which the officer was on long leave preceding the date of the meeting and if such reports for the said period are not available, on the basis of the Confidential Reports for the one year immediately after rejoining duty after leave. THErefore, the question of considering one year duty after rejoining duty is relevant only in case where the Confidential Reports for three years before the officer went on long leave are not available. THE stand taken in Ext. Pt that an officer who rejoined duty after a long leave has to wait for one year to be considered by the D. P. C. for promotion is without any basis. THE petitioner's eligibility for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer must be considered on the basis of the Confidential Reports for three years preceding the date of the meeting of the D. P. C. and excluding the period of long leave. In effect the three years confidential Reports before he proceeded on leave must be the basis for considering the eligibility of the petitioner. That is quite clear from the wording of the Rule. THErefore, there is no logic behind the reasoning stated in Ext. Pt. I quash Ext. Pt. THE convenor of the D. P. C. is directed to convene a meeting of the D. P. C. and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant executive Engineer on the basis of the Confidential Reports for three years prior to the long leave of the petitioner. This most be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is disposed of as above. . .