K RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are satisfied that the learned Judge's judgment was right. The question agitated is one regarding the right to promotion to the post of Assistant Professor and thereafter to the category of Professor ; and also one of inter se seniority as between the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7, The petitioner was appointed provisionally as Lecturer in the Kerala University on 20th July, 1960. The 3rd respondent was so appointed on 9-1-1959 ; the 5th respondent was similarly appointed on 20th July, 1960, The petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 were advised by the Public Service Commission for appointment as Assistant Professor by letter dated 8-10-1960. In the advice list of the Public Service Commission, the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 were ranked as Nos. 2 to 7 respectively. No. 1 in the said list, some reason or other did not accept the appointment. (Counsel for the respondent stated that he resigned ). The dates of promotion of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 in chronological order were as follows :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_66_TLKER0_1977Html1.htm</FRM> These promotions were all provisional promotions. By Ext. P1 dated 15-1-1970 the promotions were regularised assigning somewhat different dates, viz. , 3rd respondent 8-12-1963, petitioner and respondents 4 to 6 - 8-10-1965, and the 7th respondent 25-10-1965, Against this adverse affectation of his rank, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was disposed of by Ext. P2 order dated 15-6-1972. The said order was by the Government in the light of the consideration and review by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Exhibit P2 altered the date assigned to the petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 as follows :<FRM>JUDGEMENT_66_TLKER0_1977Html2.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE petitioner's grievance is that there was no ground or reason to deprive him of his legitimate seniority in the cadre of Lecturer and place him below those who were junior to him in that category in the category of Assistant Professor and on that basis to deny him promotion to the category of Professor or to postpone his chances of promotion to the said category. The ground alleged in support of the account taken in placing the petitioner below the rank of some, if not, all of the respondents, is that the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted as Assistant Professor till 20-7-1965. The petitioner would contend that this objection cannot be placed against him as there was no valid prescription of qualifications by the University on the basis of which his claim for seniority and for promotion could be defeated. The question essentially depends upon the validity or otherwise of the Ordinance issued by the University under the provisions of Sections 26 (e), 27 and Section 37. : These Sections in so far as they are material are as follows:

(3.) WE are of the opinion that there is no force in the objection. The question has been considered by one of us in the decision in Venkiteswaran and Ors. v. State of Kerala (1968) K. L. T. 468. It was observed :