LAILA RANI VIJAYARAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal is filed against common judgment of the learned Single Judge in the connected Writ Petitions filed by the appellant praying for direction to the Government to reckon her service in the blood bank prior to joining the Pathology Department in the Medical College. The service benefit sought is for promotion to Higher Grade of Assistant Professor and later as Professor in the Department of Pathology. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for the State and have gone through the impugned judgment. Admittedly the appellant while serving the blood bank which is a Department of Medical College, applied for the post of Tutor in Pathology Department against a notification published by PSC. On getting appointment in the Pathology Department as Tutor pursuant to selection by PSC, the appellant joined service after getting a relieving order from the Department of Blood Bank. There is no Rule that entitles the appellant for tagging on previous service in one department after joining yet another department. Even though appellant has a case that Department of Blood Bank and Department of Pathology are one and the same, Government Pleader has denied the claim. Further, it is admitted that appellant's appointment in the Pathology Department is based on separate selection by PSC while she was working in the Department of Blood Bank. If the two departments are one and the same as claimed by the appellant, then we see no reason why the appellant could not seek a transfer to the post she later got in the Pathology Department. Obviously appellant's claim that both departments are one and the same is incorrect and unacceptable. Service Rules do not provide for tagging prior service in another department for the purpose of promotion and seniority. Even though counsel submitted that certain other persons were granted the benefit, we do not think mistakes or favouritism done by the Government should be allowed to be repeated under orders of this Court. In fact, the learned Single Judge rightly commented and cautioned the Government against favouritism being shown which leads to repetitive claim of others on ground of equality and equal favouritism. We completely agree with the learned Single Judge in condemning the Government in doing favours of the kind against Rules and that give rise to litigation in this Court. Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above observation against the Government. Even though Writ Appeal is dismissed, appellant is free to claim any benefit of her service in the blood bank for pension or other purposes, if permissible under the Rules.