P V PARAMESWARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was referred to a Division Bench by a single Judge, who thought that an earlier Division Bench in M. B. Koyakutty v. Narayanan Kutty Nambiyar, Writ Appeal No. 167 of 1967 accepted the contention of the appellant therein that, once he had been granted exemption by the Madras Government from the minimum educational qualification at the time of his appointment as a lower division clerk, the exemption enured to him even for promotion to the upper division cadre. And the Division Bench, when the writ petition came before it, agreed with the single Judge and said that the decision in Koyakutty's case required reconsideration. The writ petition was consequently referred to a Full Bench.

(2.) IN Koyakutty's case, Koyakutty did not have the minimum educational qualification (S. S. L. C.); but he was given exemption by the Madras Government by an order dated 15th April, 1954. The order stated that "koyakutty was exempted from the minimum general educational qualification so as to enable him to be appointed as a lower division clerk in the Registration Department". This appears in paragraph 1 of the order; and the same language appears in paragraph 2 too. After the formation of the Kerala State and after the coming into force of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, Koyakutty claimed promotion to the upper division cadre, which prayer was rejected. Then, he filed a writ petition before this Court; and a single Judge held that, in view of the language of the order exempting Koyakutty from the minimum educational qualification, the exemption enured only for enabling him to be in the lower division cadre : in other words, the single Judge held that the exemption did not enure for promotion to the upper division cadre. This was questioned in W. A. No. 167 of 1967 by Koyakutty ; and a Division Bench reversed the decision of the single Judge The Division Bench, however, made it clear that it was "unnecessary to consider the question whether the exemption granted to the appellant by the Madras Government as per Ext. P-2 would entitle him to promotion as an upper division clerk": in other words, the Division Bench did not consider that question.

(3.) THE Division Bench considered the effect of some rules in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, and held that, in the light of those rules, Koyakutty was entitled to be promoted to the upper division cadre. The Division Bench referred to, in particular, Rules 1, 2 and 28 (b) (ii); and it was on the strength of these rules that the Division Bench reversed the decision of the single Judge.