BHANUMATHI T. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, both of the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Petitioner at the time of filing of the writ petition was working as Assistant Manager (HR) under the 2nd respondent. She has now retired from service. It is contended that the employees of the 2nd respondent Corporation are governed by Ext.P1 Special Rules wherein the post of Assistant Manager is included as G9 under the Human Resources (HR) Department and the post of Personal Secretary is included in the Secretarial Wing though the same is also included as G9. As per Ext.P1, promotion to the post of Deputy Manager is to be done by selection from Assistant Managers in G9 having degree with two years service. Though the promotion to the post of Deputy Manager was over due and the petitioner made request in this regard, no action has been taken to grant promotion to the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the information provided to another employee, who is the petitioner in the other writ petition, intimating that only on finalisation of the staff pattern steps could be taken for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. Petitioner submits that promotions were effected in spite of the fact that the staff patterns were not finalised in respect of other posts as evident from Ext.P3. Ultimately by Ext.P4 the staff pattern was approved. Later the petitioner was called for an interview on the basis of Ext.P5 interview memo. The interview did not take place and the petitioner was informed as per Ext.P6 letter that another writ petition filed as W.P.(C) No.26260 of 2019 is pending consideration and therefore interview will be conducted in terms of the final verdict of the said case. While so steps were taken to amend Ext.P1 Rules. Draft Rules were approved by the Director Board of the 2nd respondent and forwarded to the Government and ultimately by Ext.P8 amended Rules were approved by the Government as per Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 the post of Personal Secretary is also included as a feeder category for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager. Based on the same Ext.P9 interview memo was served on the petitioner and due to Ext.P8 amended Rules petitioner is treated as junior to respondents 4 to 6 since they have entered G9 category earlier than the petitioner. The specific case of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 can be made applicable only to those vacancies which arose subsequent to Ext.P7 amendment and two vacancies of Deputy Manager was available since 2018 and the petitioner being fully qualified for promotion to the said post prior to Ext.P7 amendment has to be promoted in terms of Ext.P1 Rules. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Initially when the matter came up for consideration on 19/1/2022 this Court has passed an interim order to the effect that the appointment to the post of Deputy Manager pursuant to the interview held on 22/1/2022 shall be effected only after obtaining further orders from this Court. Later taking note of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service on 31/5/2022 this Court as per order dtd. 7/7/2022 permitted appointment to the post of Deputy Manager, however making such appointments purely provisional and subject to further orders of this Court.