NARAYANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an Additional Director of Public Relations in the service of the respondent State. The original petition was filed on 25-3-1992 challenging the two proceedings Exts. P12 and P13 of the Government by which the petitioner was informed that his claim for being posted as Director of Cultural Affairs could not be granted and that the earlier decisions rejecting such a claim did not require reconsideration. The original petition was subsequently sought to be amended by filing CMP. No. 15954 of 1992 to quash the appointment of one E. K. Bharath Bhooshan an officer borne in the LAS. cadre as director of Public Relations by the proceedings Ext. P16 dated 26-6-1992. This petition was allowed on 20th July, 1992.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding to state the facts of the case or dealing with the contentions raised by the parties, I must mention a feature that has been noted in many of the original petitions that have come up before me for hearing. Leave is often granted by this court for amending the original petitions incorporating new averments and new prayers besides producing new documents. Very often the amendments are not carried out in the original petition; nor copies of the amended original petition produced with the result the court has to wade through various petitions to get a true picture of the amended original petition. Such a situation exists in this original petition also, the petitioner not having chosen to carry out the amendment allowed by CMP. No. 15954 of 1992 in the original petition. Nor has he chosen to produce copies of the amended original petition. Normally this should have entailed refusal to look into the amendment. But I am refraining from doing so to avoid a failure of justice. It is necessary that all amendments to an original petition either in the averments or the prayers in the original petition or by way of production of new documents should be carried out in the original petition besides producing copies of the amended original petition for the use of the court and for service on the contesting respondents. However, as stated earlier I am treating he petition as one amended by CMP. No. 15954 of 1992 and dealing with it as such despite the default on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the amendment. I must also mention that in between the original petition and c. M. P. No. 15954 of 1992 a document had been introduced as Ext. P15 along with cmp. No. 14019 of 1992, a petition for direction. Having regard to the numbering of this annexure, it is clear that the petitioner intended that also to be treated as part of the original petition. But it has made its appearance in a petition for direction without being followed by any petition for amendment of the original petition. Production of such documents along with applications for interim relief to be treated as exhibits in the main petition also causes difficulties to the court when such production is not followed up by appropriate amendment. One of the problems that may arise is that the exhibit in question will remain unexplained and unanswered in any counter affidavit that may be filed by the respondents as it does not form part of the original petition itself, though that contingency does not arise so far as this case and ext. P15 produced along with CMP. No. 14019 are concerned. With these prefatory remarks I shall proceed to state the facts and deal with the matter on merits.

(3.) WHILE the original petition was pending, Nataraja panicker retired from service, on 50-6-1992. Petitioner as the seniormost officer in the department aspired to be promoted and posted as the Director of Public relations. Petitioner made appropriate re] presentation, which was produced along with CMP. No. 14019 a petition for directions as Ext. P15 requesting that he may be posted as the Director of Public Relations with effect from 1-7-1992. The direction sought in that petition was that any decision taken by the government in the matter of appointment of the Director of Public Relations may be stayed. This court issued an interim direction as prayed for on 29-6-1992 and that has continued till date.