LAWS(KER)-1994-1-66

A. ALBERT Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Decided On January 12, 1994
A. ALBERT Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA And ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a Junior Superintendent in the establishment of the Directorate of Public Instruction, the Respondent No. 3 herein, is currently working as Junior Superintendent in the offices under the control of the Director of Higher Secondary Education, the Respondent No. 2. He is on deputation to the office under the Director of Higher Secondary Education. He has since been promoted as Superintendent in his parent department, namely, the Directorate of Public Instruction. Therefore the Respondent No. 1 the State of Kerala proposes to terminate his deputation with the Respondent No. 2. By order No. D3/9051/93/D.P.I., dated 28th January 1993, the State of Kerala extended the deputation of all employees except the Petitioner. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner seeks an order (i) directing the State of Kerala the Respondent No. 1 to stop all proceedings to transfer the Petitioner from the office of the 2nd Respondent where he is on deputation and (ii) a direction to the Respondents 1 and 2 to complete the formalities of absorption and regularisation of the service of the Petitioner in the office of the Respondent No. 2 before filling up the vacancy of the Joint Director (Examinations).

(2.) IN a nut shell, Petitioner's case is this. He has been on deputation in the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education where he expects to be promoted to higher positions like the Joint Director (Examinations). The State of Kerala has set afoot the process of absorption and regularisation of the employees on deputation. The Petitioner, if continued on deputation has a "right" to be so absorbed and promoted to a higher post created in the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education. The proposed action of the Respondents in bringing on deputation employees from the universities will harm the Petitioner's prospects of promotion in the directorate where he seeks absorption.

(3.) THE legality of the Respondents' action has to be considered against the background of the facts set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.