DANIEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this Writ Petition is directed against Ext. P-2 Government Order G. O. (P) No. 100/80/h. Edn. , dated 1st July 1980, where under a quota for promotion to the post of General Foreman and senior Foreman Binding, have been fixed in the ratio 1:1 between the certificate holders on the one part and the Diploma holders in Printing technology on the other. In the writ petition there are three petitioners. THE 3rd petitioner died during the pendency of the Writ Petition and the relief now sought for is only as regards to petitioners 1 and 2.

(2.) THE first petitioner entered service as Printer on 17th April 1959. On 6th August 1962 he was promoted as Assistant Foreman machine, on 1st January 1966 as Junior Foreman and 13th October 1971 as Senior foreman THE next promotion to which he is entitled to get is that of General Foreman.

(3.) IN the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in a. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1, A. I R. 1974 S. C. 1631,1983 KLT 987, 1983 K. L. T. 878, 1981 (2)Kerala 527 and 1975 K L. T. 1, we have no doubt at all that this classification on microscopic distinction could not be allowed. We would therefore strike down the notes to Branch Nos. 1 and 9 named in Ext. P-2. "2 (1) Note. - Promotion of persons qualified under item 2 (a) and 2 (b) above shall be made in the ratio 1:1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under item 2 (a ). If no person qualified under item 2 (a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under item 2 (b) and vice versa: Provided that no senior Diploma holder shall be superseded by a junior certificate holder and provided that the benefit of turn under the ratio of 1:1 forfeited by the certificate holder by virtue of the promotion of the Senior Diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy. (8) in branch- IX Note. - Promotion of person qualified under items 2 (a) and 2 (b) above shall be made in the ratio 1:1 starting with promotion of persons qualified under item 2 (a ). If no person qualified under item 2 (a) is available for promotion, the turn of promotion will be given to the person qualified under item 2 (b) and vice versa: Provided that no Senior Diploma holder shall be superseded by a Junior Certificate holder and provided that the benefit of the turn under the ratio 1:1 forfeited by the certificate helder by virtue of the promotion, of the Senior Diploma holder, shall be restored to the certificate holder in the next arising vacancy". Promotion if any to which the petitioners are entitled will be made on a review of the position in the light of statute as early as possible. This Original Petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced, the government Pleader made an oral submission for leave to appeal the Supreme court. We do not think any substantial question of law of general importance is involved in this case to be decided by the Supreme Court. Hence leave is declined. Leave refused. . .