LAWS(KER)-1973-10-26

GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On October 12, 1973
GOPALAKRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are taken by the petitioners from the common judgment of Isaac,J.in ten Original Petitions that were heard along with O.P.No.5165 of 1972,dismis­sing the petitions.The question that was raised in the Original Petitions was that the Special Rules that had been framed by Ext.P -2(in O.P.No.5165 of 1972)and made applicable to the members of the Kerala Survey and Land Records Subordinate Service was violative of the proviso to sub -section(7)of section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act,1956(for short,the Act ).To understand the conten­tions a few facts have to be stated.

(2.) THE petitioners were persons either allotted from the Travancore -Cochin State or the Madras State to Kerala on the formation of the Kerala State by the Act.Those that came from Madras were called 'Deputy Surveyors 'and that from Travancore -Cochin were known as '1st Grade Surveyors ' ;.They were equated for the purpose of integration.Different test qualifications had been prescribed for the personnel in Travancore -Cochin and Madras States for promotion from the above categories to that of Head Surveyors.By Ext.P -2 Rules additional tests were introduced and by virtue of rule 13A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,1958 the petitioners were entitled to a period of two years to pass those tests.Ext.P -3 order produced along with the Original Petition granted two more years.This was subsequently extended by Ext.P -5 giving a further concession;they were given time till they got eight chances,which amounted to a further period of 3 more years.The petitioners did not succeed in passing the tests within the four years provided by Ext.P -3.The concession granted by Ext.P -5 was cancelled by Ext.P -7 order and the Original Petitions have been filed challenging Ext.P -7.The learned Judge as already stated dismissed the petitions.

(3.) ISAAC ,J.found that the petitions were belated.It was also held that the principles of the decision in Raghavendra Rao v. Deputy Commissioner ,A.I.R.1965 S.C.136 would apply and hence there was no violation of the proviso to sub -section(7)of section 115 of the Act.No views were expressed on the second question.