PEETHAMBARAN U K Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition carries challenge against order dated 19.5.2016 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.233 of 2015. The petitioner herein was the applicant and the respondents herein were the respondents, before the Tribunal. The said O.A was filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 and 12 and also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) For a proper appreciation of the case of the petitioner, a narration of facts, in succinct, is required. The petitioner entered into the service of Public Works Department as Draftsman Grade-I, on 7.12.1985. He was then a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering. Later, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 18.10.1999 under the Diploma quota set apart for such promotion. Subsequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) drew Annexure-A1 select list for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) in the Department, on 12.3.2010. The petitioner's name was included in the list of diploma holders at Sl.No.43. While so, Annexure-A3 proposal was forwarded by the Chief Engineer to the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department on 4.8.2010. As per Annexure-A3, the Chief Engineer reported three vacancies in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer available for promotion from among the category of Diploma holders. The petitioner's name was also recommended thereunder. In pursuance thereof, as per Annexure-A5 dated 30.11.2010, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and accordingly, he joined the said post on 3.12.2010. In the meanwhile, he acquired B.Tech Degree in Civil Engineering from Kannur University. Evidently, the result of B.Tech examination was published on 17.8.2010 and he received the B.Tech Degree certificate dated 4.11.2010, on 13.12.2010. According to the petitioner, it was despatched from the University only on 10.12.2010 and to establish the same, he produced Annexure-A6 which is a copy of the postal envelope. After joining the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, he submitted Annexure-A7 dated 27.12.2010 which carries a request to enter the factum of his acquisition of B.Tech Degree in Civil Engineering in the Service Book and also for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota with effect from 3.12.2010 viz., the date of his promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. On its receipt, the Chief Engineer forwarded the same, under Annexure-A8 (in Ext.P1) to the Principal Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, with recommendation for its favourable consideration, as can be seen from it. Thereafter, as per Annexure-A9 dated 18.3.2011, his Service Book was returned to the Chief Engineer for inclusion of his name in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers under the graduate quota. Annexure-A10 is the subsequent proceedings of the Chief Engineer dated 23.4.2011. It would reveal that the name of the petitioner and three others who acquired degree qualification were provisionally included in the provisional seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers under the degree quota and objections, if any, in the matter was required to be submitted within one month. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer sought for a clarification on the issue of the inclusion of the names of the petitioner and one B.Sreekumar in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers under the graduate quota stating that their date of examination and dates of certificate are prior to the date of their promotion. A copy of the same is seen marked as Annexure-A11 dated 16.8.2011. Subsequently, the Government have issued Annexure-A12 dated 27.9.2011 which is a clarification letter to the effect that since the petitioner and the other person had failed to exercise the option to come over to Degree quota while working as Assistant Engineers, their request for inclusion in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineers under the Degree quota could not be considered. Obviously, such a clarification was issued with reference to Rule 5 of the Kerala Engineering Service (Civil and General Branch) Rules (for short the 'Rules'). Aggrieved by Annexure-A12, the petitioner filed O.A.No.684 of 2012 before the Tribunal. As per Annexure-A13 order, the said O.A was dismissed. The petitioner filed O.P.(KAT).No.38 of 2014 before this Court challenging Annexure-A13. This Court, as per Annexure-A14, found that Annexure-A12 herein viz., order dated 27.9.2011 was passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and on that ground, set aside Annexure-A12. Furthermore, the first respondent was directed to re-consider the same and pass fresh orders on Annexure-A11 herein, with notice to the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard. In compliance with the directions thereunder, the petitioner was issued with notice and he was heard and Annexure-A20 order dated 19.01.2015 was passed. As per the same, reiterating the reasons, but in elaboration, the request of the petitioner for his inclusion in the seniority list of Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.233 of 2015 before the Tribunal. As per the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. The captioned original petition has been filed in the said circumstances.