STATE OF KERALA Vs. NIZAR AHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but important question that arises in this case is whether a direction issued by this Court can be nullified and thereby the parties can be deprived of their rights by the State making a retrospective amendment to the rules. The writ appeal is filed by the State of Kerala and the Inspector General of Prisons who were respondents in the original petition. Pending the original petition, a Deputy Jailor got himself impleaded as additional 3rd respondent. The petitioners respondents have filed a memorandum of cross objections in the writ appeal.

(2.) The petitioners in the original petition are District Probation Officers. They originally formed part of the Kerala Jail Service. They aspired to become Jailors in Central Jails. As per the Special Rules for the Kerala Jail Service, Probation Officers were also in the feeder category for the post of Jailors along with Deputy Jailors. After the petitioners became qualified for the post of jailor, as many as 10 vacancies arose from 23rd April 1969 to 26th March 1974. These vacancies were provisionally filled up by promoting persons belonging to the Jail wing of the department. The petitioners who belong to the probation wing of the department made representations pointing out their legitimate claims for promotions. By a communication dated 2nd January 1975 the Inspector General of Prisons asked for willingness for appointment as Jailors in the Central Prison. By another circular dated 17th June 1975 persons willing for appointment as Jailors were asked to furnish details regarding their qualification. The petitioners complied with the above directions

(3.) Then, by a Government Order, dated 9th September 1975 the Social Welfare Department was formed and the probation wing of the Jail Department was transferred to the newly formed department. In 1977, by notification, dated 24th June 1977 the Special Rules for the Kerala Jail Service were amended and Probation Officers were taken out of the feeder category for appointment to the post of Jailors. The above amendment was not having any retrospective effect and hence, according to the petitioners, their rights for appointment as Jailors in the vacancies which arose before the Social Welfare Department was formed, were not affected by the amendment. The petitioners again made representations and the State Government instructed the Inspector General of Prisons to take appropriate steps to fill up the vacancies in the post of Jailors which arose prior to 1975. The requisite particulars of the petitioners were duly furnished to the Inspector General of Prisons by the Director of Social Welfare.