STATE OF KERALA Vs. C.B.ABDULRAHIMAN KUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala, the defendant in O.S. No. 244/2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for damages. The plaintiff retired from the Police Department as Deputy Superintendent on 30/11/1997. He joined in service as Sub inspector on 1/1/1966, got promotion as Circle Inspector of Police on 7/4/1974 and Deputy Superintendent of Police on 4/4/1983 and Superintendent of Police with effect from 22/2/1995. He was eligible for consideration to the Indian Police Service (IPS) in Kerala Cadre on completion of eight years of service as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The procedure for such promotion is regulated by Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation, 1955. The plaintiff had an unblemished service record and secured nine rewards for outstanding performance in service. As per Rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation, 1955, a meeting of the Select Committee shall be convened before 31st March in every year for preparing the list of eligible officers. Though the name of the plaintiff was included in the select list of 1995- 96, the committee had not convened in that year, in spite of request given by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred O.A. No.1356/1997 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the defendant to convene the meeting without delay.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the Select Committee met on 26/12/1996 and prepared a select list including the name of the plaintiff as the 6th person against seven existing vacancies. Because of the callous and negligent delay caused by the defendant, the plaintiff did not get promotion before his retirement. The plaintiff filed O.A. No.155/1998 for declaration of his eligibility, in which the Tribunal directed the defendant to take a final decision within a stipulated time. However, the Secretary to the Government rejected the request for his appointment in the Indian Police Service on the ground that the select list came into operation only on 22/7/1997 and before it was approved by the UPSC, the plaintiff retired from service. According to the plaintiff, if the select list was finalised in time, the plaintiff would have been appointed in any of the existing vacancies and because of the delay, he sustained a huge loss to his career. In the judgment in O.P No.20741/2000, this court also found that the plaintiff lost promotion to the cadre of IPS, only due to the latches and willful omission on the part of the officers of the defendant. It was in this context, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming compensation for the loss sustained by him.