MOHANDAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPERSESSION by the Departmental Promotion Committee entitles the superseded officer to make a representation and the Committee is bound to consider the same adverting to the grounds on which the supersession was made. But in the process, is the Departmental Promotion Committee entitled to rely on other grounds and justify the supersession? That is the question which arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) R. 28 (b) (i) (8) (a) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules which is relevant in the matter reads as follows: "the select list prepared by the Departmental promotion Committee in the manner referred to above shall be published by the convener of the Committee after approval by the Government. Normally no revision of such select list shall be made under R. 29 on the basis of re-evaluation of the confidential reports. However, if any officer who has been superseded and whose name has not been included in the list makes, within one month from the date of publication of the list, a written representation to the Convener of the Departmental Promotion committee requesting a revision of the list, the Committee shall consider the representation. After going through the representation, if the Committee feels that some clarification should be obtained from the superseded officer by personal hearing, it may do so and on the basis of such representation and personal hearing if it is of the view that the list already prepared should be revised, it may make a recommendation to the effect. The list shall then be revised accordingly and published by the Convener after approval by the government. Note:-Promotions from the first list published by the departmental Promotion Committee shall be provisional and the list will be subject to revision, if after following the procedure, it is found that the list requires revision".

(3.) SRI. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner preferred a representation on being superseded on certain grounds and those grounds having been found to be untenable, there is no justification in superseding the petitioner on another ground, assuming such a ground was available. It is also contended that the rules contemplate only one supersession, one representation and one review and that power of review having been exercised on points explained/represented, it was not open to the DPC to justify the supersession on another ground, assuming it was a case of bonafide omission to take note of a factual situation or a case of mistake of fact. There is also a contention that under r. 28 (b) (i) (8) (a), the DPC is entitled to consider only as to whether the representation is to be allowed or not for the reasons stated in the representation, nothing more and nothing less.