O.A.JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant in O.A.No.1332/2017 before the Tribunal has filed this Original Petition challenging the final order in that Original Application (Ext.P.5). A review petition filed before the Tribunal seeking review of that order was also dismissed by Ext.P7 order dated 14.09.2020.

(2.) The petitioner joined the Social Welfare Department on 1.1.1985 through direct recruitment to the post of Child Development Project Officer, on the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission. According to him, persons recruited to the category of District Probation Officer Gr.II were cornering all promotional avenues to the detriment of persons like the petitioner, who entered service much earlier than them. On taking up his grievances with the Government, the petitioner was informed that the matter would be considered on finalization of the special rules. The grievances of the petitioner were not redressed when the Government issued the special rules vide G.O.(P)No.28/92.AWD dated 5.8.1992. The validity of the 1992 Rules were challenged before this Court through W.P.(C)No.32366/2007. A learned single Judge of this Court found the Rules to be arbitrary and discriminatory and directed that till the Special Rules are suitably amended, the promotions to the category of Regional Probation Officer/Regional Assistant Director of Social Welfare (Category-4) shall be made strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i) (7) (vi) of the General Rules (Part II of the KS and SSR). However, the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1873 & 1960/2009. The statutory rules were subsequently amended in 2010 prescribing a ratio of 10:1 between Child Development Project Officers and District Probation Officers Gr.I for promotion to the post of District Social Welfare Officer. However, these Rules were given only prospective effect. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1873 and 1960/2009 were challenged before the Supreme Court through SLP(C)No.10318/2010. That Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed, however, permitting the filing of representations before the Government and further directing the State Government to consider the representations. The representation was rejected. The petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal claiming that he was entitled to notional promotion as Joint Director/Additional Director with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted to those posts and also to extend the benefits of such notional promotion to him.

(3.) We have heard Sri.O.A Joseph, the petitioner who appeared party in Person and the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the matter we find that the Special Rules of 1992 were applicable till 29.3.2010. The 1992 Rules were framed with retrospective effect from 9.9.1975. It may be that there were some anomalies in the Rules as noticed by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.32366/2007. However, the said judgment was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court through judgment dated 19.1.2020 in W.A.Nos.1873 and 1960/2009. The Division Bench found that the provisions of Rule 28 of Part II of KS & SSR will apply only in the absence of Special Rules. It is also noticed that the Rule 2 of Part II of the KS & SSR also provides that if there is a conflict between the Special Rules and General Rules, the provisions of the Special Rules will prevail. The Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the judgment in W.A.Nos.1873 & 1976 of 2009 held as follows: