THE BOARD OF REVENUE Vs. CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALTHOUGH the matter caused us some amount of anxiety and required some amount of consideration,we are satisfied that the learned Judge was right and that his judgment should be affirmed.

(2.) THE question raised in this writ appeal is whether the writ Petitioner -Respondent was entitled to be appointed as Village Assistant.He was appointed as Chainman by Ext.P -1 order,dated 6th August 1973.That order shows on its face that the Government had reserved 25 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants to be filled up by qualified last grade servants and attenders of the Revenue Department who had put in a minimum period of five years of service in the Revenue Department.15 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants were set apart for appointment of qualified villageman and 10 per cent of the vacancies of Village Assistants were left for appointment of qualified last grade servants and Attenders of the Land Revenue,Survey and Land Records Department as Village Assistants.The remaining 50 per cent was to be filled up by direct recruitment.Therefore,on the basis of Ext.P -1,the Petitioner's claim for promotion as Village Assistant must satisfy two conditions;( 1)that he was in the Revenue Department and(2)that he was a last grade servant in that Department.Both these were contested.The learned Judge overruled the objections raised against the Petitioner's claims and held that his representations Exts.P -2 and P -4 ventilating his claims for promotion as Village Assistant had been wrongly rejected by the Government by Ext.P -5 order.

(3.) THE next question is:was he a last grade servant? There is acute controversy in regard to this aspect of the matter again.Attention was called to the definition of last grade service in Clause 16A of Rule 12 of Part I,K.S.R.The said rule reads as follows: 16 -A.Last grade service. - - Last grade service includes all service in the following appointments unless otherwise declared by the Government: (a)Service as Peon,Head Peon,Mochee and Duffadar. (b)Service in posts,the pay or the maximum pay of which does not exceed Rs.85. (c)Any service which has been specifically classed as last grade service by the orders of Government. For the Government Pleader,it was argued that the Petitioner would not fall within the category(b)which alone would be applicable to him as the maximum pay of his post,exceeded - - as was admitted - - Rs.85.For the writ Petitioner it was argued that Clause(b)of Sub -rule 16A of Rule 12 of the K.S.R.as it appears,represents an impossible and an inconceivable state of affairs,as there are no last grade servants in the State today whose maximum pay does not exceed Rs.85.It was pointed out that by G.O.P.91/74 the pay of last grade servants had been revised to Rs.196 -3 -229 -4 -245.It is surprising and we should think indeed regrettable that a Government publication like the K.S.R.( 1976 Edition)which was placed before us,should still contain Clause(b)worded in this misleading and anachronistic fashion.We trust steps would be taken at the earliest,to have the clause corrected or suitably amended. In order to show whether the writ Petitioner would fall within the last grade service as known to the Rules of this State,attention was called to the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Servants.Rule(1)of the said Rules has constituted the service which is as follows: 1.Constitution. - - The service shall consist of the following categories of posts namely: Category 1:Chowkidar,Line Maistry,Line Attendant,Care,taker,Packer,Counter and Janitor. Category 2:Duffadar,Mochee,Gasman,Guard,Helmsman,Dispensary Attendant,Field Workers,Ayah,Court -keeper,Dresser,Head -keeper,Field Assistant,Turn Cock(Keeper)and Last Grade Attenders. 3.Any other post in the last grade service as defined in Clause 16A of Rule 12 in Part I of the Kerala Service Rules and who has not been included in any other service. 4.The learned Government Pleader stressed that the Chainman does not find specific enumeration.This is so.But category 3 is a residual,unenumerated category.The question still remains:Is a Chainman included in that category? Counsel for the writ Petitioner drew our attention to Rule 5 which is as follows: