B PRADEEP Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL; SASIDHARAN MOORIAN; REJI K VARGHESE; SUJITH T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition entered service as an Assistant Grade II in the High Court service on 28.06.1993. He was later promoted as Assistant Grade I (Selection Grade) on 12.04.1996. While functioning as such, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on a number of occasions. By an order dated 17.09.2002, he was imposed with a punishment of barring of two increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, pursuant to a memo of charges dated 31.03.2009, and an enquiry that followed, a punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on him by an order dated 07.08.2011. During this period, he was also served with a memo of charges dated 24.07.2010 that eventually led to the imposition of another punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect, by an order dated 13.11.2014. On account of the aforementioned proceedings, the petitioner was superseded in the matter of promotion to the post of Section Officer/Court Officer which is a selection post in the High Court establishment. While issuing orders, on the last occasion, for considering the candidature of those persons who were junior to the petitioner in service, the Chief Justice made it clear that the petitioner need be considered only to vacancies arising to the post of Section Officer/Court Officer after 31.12.2010, subject to the result of the disciplinary proceedings that were then pending against him, and subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the promotion post. The petitioner's juniors were therefore considered for promotion, and their promotions were regularized by an order dated 19.12.2014.

(2.) When the Selection committee met for considering the candidature of persons for appointment as Section Officers/Court Officers to the vacancies that arose after 31.12.2010, the petitioner's candidature was, once again, not considered since he had been imposed a punishment of barring of two increments without cumulative effect, by an order dated 13.11.2014. The interview of candidates for promotion was scheduled on 18th and 19th of March, 2015 and, in the list of eligible persons published on 13.03.2015, the petitioner's name was not shown. This led the petitioner to, initially, approach the Chief Justice with a prayer to stall the interview proceedings, and alternatively, to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview proceedings. When the said course of action failed to yield any positive response, the petitioner approached this court through the present writ petition seeking permission to provisionally participate in the interview proceedings. By an interim order dated 18.03.2015, this court directed the petitioner's name to be provisionally included in Ext.P5 list of eligible persons and further directed the selection committee to provisionally interview the petitioner pending final disposal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner was provisionally interviewed on 20.03.2015. The petitioner, however, failed to qualify for promotion since, going by the criteria in the guidelines laid down by the Chief Justice for determination of the merit and ability of the candidates, the petitioner who was imposed with a punishment in the five year period preceding the selection year, had to be treated as a person who was not fit for promotion. Based on a report to that effect placed before him by the selection committee, the Chief Justice passed Ext.P10 order dated 09.06.2015, accepting the report of the selection committee and excluding the petitioner from the list of persons directed to be promoted as Section Officer/Court Officer. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts.P5 and P10 orders, primarily on the contention that it was not open to the Chief Justice to impose strict criteria, that were not expressly mentioned in the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 2007, while assessing the merit and ability of candidates for promotion to the post of Section Officer/Court Officer.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the High Court, wherein, while justifying Ext.P10 order as well as the guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, it is pointed out that the petitioner has had adverse remarks recorded against him in his ACR in 1999 itself and, thereafter, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner had been imposed punishments on three occasions viz. in 2002, 2011 and 2014. It is stated that, during the five-year period between 2010 and 2015, there were two punishments imposed on the petitioner, and the punishment that was imposed in 2014 is still current, in that the period of operation of the punishment is till 12.11.2016.