PHILIP ABRAHAM AND OTHERS Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in the Administrative Secretariat and in the Election and Store Purchase Departments respectively in 1957. The following table gives their dates of appointment and dates of advice by the Public Service Commission : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_42_LAWS(KER)7_19751.htm</FRM>

(2.) At the time of their appointments, these departments - Election and Store Purchase - were functioning as independent departments and separate from the Ad ministrative Secretariat. They were merited with the Administrative Secretariat with effect from 2-158 and 14-58 respectively. In the [integration of these departments the principles fallowed for integration of Travancore-Cochin and Madras personnel laid down in G. P. SI 2-40451/ 56/PD dated 29-12-1956 were made applicable. This was subject to the rules relating to departmental tests.

(3.) The State published the gradation list of Assistants Grade I and II in 1969. Respondents 2 to 4 were given lower ranks than petitioners 1 to 4 in the list of Assistants Grade II In the case of the fifth petitioner the second respondent was given a rank immediately above him in the said list. However, in the gradation list of Assistants Grade I, all these respondents were given higher rank than the petitioners. This ranking was due to the fact that in applying the principle laid down in order R. Dis. 8207/50/CS dated 7th May, 1951 - marked as Ex-P3 in the case - in spite of the integration of the three departments, the personnel who had come to the common departments of Administrative Secretariat were treated as belonging to their original three separate departments. The concern d principle in Ex-P3 is " this - A person who was superseded by his junior for want of test qualification will not lose his claim for confirmation in the higher grade or post, if by the time the permanent vacancy arises, the senior person passes the test.