RAMAKRISHNA AYYAR S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a senior Inspector Co-operative Department of the Kerala State. He is a graduate and has passed the obligatory departmental tests. He says that he in the was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Consequent on the reorganization of States, respondents 3 to 34 were allotted to Kerala State from Madras. In Madras State there were three categories of officers In the executive staff of the Madras Co-operative Subordinate Service, namely, sub-registrars, senior Inspectors and junior Inspectors. On 1 August 1958, the Go-operative Department of the Kerala State was reorganized. The sub-registrars allotted from Madras State were equated with the senior inspectors, grade I, of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. Senior Inspectors from Madras State were Integrated with the co-operative Inspectors, grade II, of the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin State. The junior Inspectors from Madras were placed one block below the newly-Integrated junior Inspectors. That two Integrated categories were designated as senior Inspectors, viz. , those consisting of sub-registrars of Madras and the inspectors, grade I, of the Travancvore-Cochin State; and junior inspectors, consisting of senior Inspectors from Madras and Inspectors, grade II, of the Travancore-Cochin area. Under the Madras rule a senior Inspector has to pass certain tests for promotion to the cadre of sub-registrar and In Travancore-Cochin State the second-grade Inspectors were required to pass certain tests for earning increment. The Integration was finally effected and the consent of the Central Government obtained by the letter dated 8 February 1962. Pending flnalization of the Integration, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his proceedings dated 3 February 1959 promoted 60 Junior Inspectors as senior inspectors. On 1 April 1960, the Registrar again promoted 19 Junior Inspectors to the grade of senior inspectors. Some doubt arose whether for promotion of the senior inspectors allotted from Madras who were redeslgnated as junior Inspectors, to the cadre of senior inspectors in Kerala State, the departmental tests should be passed. Government clarified the position by their order dated 27 February 1962 saying that all the newly-designated junior inspectors mast pass the Account Test (Lower) for promotion as senior Inspectors. The question subsequently arose whether the promotions granted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to the junior inspectors were regular and valid. Government passed Ex. P. 1 order on 24 July 1963 stating that the passing of the test was obligatory and that promotions made by the Registrar were irregular; Government therefore directed the reversion of all those persons who were promoted by the Registrar, except four persons who had by that time been promoted as Assistant Registrars and who at the time of promotions to Assistant Registrars' posts had passed the obligatory tests. To quash Ex. P. 1 order certain persons who have been promoted as senior inspectors filed writ petitions In this Court. One of those petitions was Original Petition No. 1497 of 1963. The petitions were disposed of by a common order and this Court dismissed the writ petitions whom the observation that respondents 19,15,17 and 6, who were the petitioners in Original Petition No. 1497 of 1963, need not be reverted as they had also been promoted as Assistant Registrars and had parsed the teat before their promotions as Assistant Registrars. There was a writ appeal from this order. That appeal was dismissed in view of the statement at the Bar that Government was reconsidering the matter. It was after this the Government passed the impugned order, Ex. P. 2, stating that since the promotions were made in 1962, and these persons were working In the posts of senior inspectors for a period of three years and in view of the facts that the promotions when made were not expressly mentioned to ba provisional the junior inspectors promoted as senior inspectors need not be reverted provided they pass the Account Test before the end of 1966.

(2.) PETITIONER questions this order on several grounds. Petitioner says that Ex. P. 2 order was passed mala fide, that Government have no power to exempt the personnel from Madras area from passing the teat and that the order violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner and Ors. similarly situate under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

(3.) SRI Velayudhan Nair, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Ex. P. 2 order was passed mala fide, that the reasons given in that order did not exist and that the order was passed with a view to help respondents 3 to 34. He also submitted that Government have no power to grant exemption from passing the test and the confining of the exemptions to the Madras personnel was discriminatory in character. On the question whether Government have power to grant exemptions from passing the test counsel relied upon Rule 13 of the General Rules of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958. Rule 13 reads: No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service, class, category or grade or any post borne on the cadre thereof unless he?