LEELA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext. P4 government letter rejecting her representation for seniority as Upper Division Clerk and consequential seniority as Deputy Tahsildar, based on an amendment to the Kerala Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules issued in G. O. (P) No. 160/92/RD dt. 18.2.1992. The petitioner claims a direction to the respondents "to take her seniority in the upper division cadre as 19.6.1970 or 20.3.1971 for the purpose of her promotion to still higher posts of H.C./R.I., Deputy Tahsildar, Tahsildar etc. (Prayer (c))". She further seeks a direction not to revert her from the post of Tahsildar "till the final seniority list of Deputy Tahsildar as on 12.12.1989 published along with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt. 28.9.1995 is re-cast including the petitioner in appropriate place in the above list granting her U. D. Seniority as 19.6.1970 or 20.3.1971 (Prayer (d))". Thus, in effect, the petitioner's case is that she shall be given seniority as U.D. Clerk in the Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service with effect from 19.6.70 or 20.3.71 when she said to have passed test in Manual of Office Procedure and her seniority in the further higher cadre shall be assigned accordingly. In the petitioner's own words, if "her seniority in the U.D. Cadre and H.C/R.I cadre are correctly taken from the date of her passing the M.O.P. and Account test and from the date of her promotion to the H.C. Cadre she ought to have got promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1987. .......... As stated earlier, on the basis of mistaken impression that the petitioner is entitled to seniority in the U.D. cadre only with effect from 30.6.73 (the next date of passing of D.OM test) in the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks published by the Board of Revenue, her seniority in the U.D. Cadre is shown as 30.6.73. ........ That is, if her seniority in the U.D. cadre is correctly taken as 20.3.71 she ought to have got promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on 19.12.1987 itself......... The date30.6.73 is mistakenly taken for seniority of the petitioner in U.D. cadre by the department on the wrong impression that seniority in the U.D. cadre can be counted only from the date of passing the DOM test. Such impression of the department is against the 3rd proviso to R.9(2) of Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules" (emphasis given)

(2.) Thus, the basis of the petitioner's claim is third proviso to R.9(2) of the Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules brought into effect by an amendment issued in G. O. (P) 160/92/RD dt. 18.2.1992. For this, the petitioner submits that she had passed MOP test on 10.2.1969 and was entitled to promotion as U.D. Clerks immediately thereafter. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that she passed DOM test only on 29.6.73 and that she was promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 13.2.90. The Kerala Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service was introduced as per Gazette Notification dt. 12.6.1985 with retrospective effect from 1.11.1956 when the earlier rules were struck down by this court as unconstitutional. These rules provide for method of appointment and qualification to the posts of L.D. Clerk, U.D. Clerk, Head Clerk etc. The petitioner commenced her service in Printing and Stationary Department on 12.9.1967. In that Department, test in Manual of Office Procedure was the necessary qualification for declaration of probation and promotion as U.D. Clerks. Therefore, the petitioner passed that test on 10.2.1969. Later, she got an interdepartmental transfer as L.D. Clerk in Revenue Department on 19.2.69. As per the rules for Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service, the necessary qualification for promotion as U.D. Clerk includes pass in District Office Manual Test which is made obligatory from 14.1.1963. Those who have passed Manual of Office Procedure test or Secretarial Manual Test before 14.1.1963, are entitled for promotion as U.D.Clerk without District Office Manual Test. Thus, in the case of the petitioner, after she having come to the Revenue Department as a L.D. Clerk, a pass in District Office Manual Test was obligatory as per the special rules as it stood at the relevant time. She could not have got a promotion as U.D. Clerk on the basis of the test in MOP to her credit. Admittedly, she passed the test in District Office Manual only on 29.6.73. Therefore, she could have aspired promotion as U.D. Clerk only after that date. She cannot claim promotion as U.D. Clerk on any date prior to that. Accordingly, she was assigned the date of promotion as U.D. Clerk with effect from 30.6.73. On its basis, she got further promotion and became a Deputy Tahsildar on 13.2.1990.

(3.) Deputy Tahsildar is a post in the Revenue Subordinate Service governed by a different set of special rules. She fell out of Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules on such promotion. While she was continuing as Deputy Tahsildar, special rules for Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service was amended by G. O. (P) 160/92/RD dt. 18.2.1992, substituting the date 12.6.1985 instead of 14.1.1963 in the second proviso in the second column in the table below R.9 of the special Rules. But, at the same time, the first provision provided that pass in above test (DOM test) will be obligatory from 14.1.1963 remains unchanged. When this amendment was brought into force, she was not in the Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service. The petitioner submits that on the strength of this amendment, as she possessed the test in Manual of Office Procedure, the promotions to the U.D. Cadre shall be reviewed and she should have been given promotion as U.D. Clerk with effect from 19.6.1970 or 20.3.1971. Thus, the issue is whether the amendment brought to the special rules for Kerala Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service on 18.2.1992 can affect the personnel working as on that date in another service namely, Revenue Subordinate Service governed by a different set of rules.