RAVUNNIKUTTY Vs. ROSALIND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 2442 of 1983. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows: The appellant commenced his career as a Copyist with effect from 25-9-1970 in the Magistrate's Court at Pattambi in Palghat District. He was promoted as Lower Division Clerk on 8-10-1974 and confirmed in that capacity on 8-11-1976. For further promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerk, it was necessary for the appellant to pass the Account Test (Lower) prescribed under the rules consisting of four papers. The appellant passed in papers 2, 3 and 4 on 1-4-1977. In regard to the remaining paper viz., the 1st paper which he took on 29-7-1982, the result was announced on the notice board of the Public Service Commission on the 1st November, 1982 and the same was also published in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-11-1982. The appellant having been declared passed thus earned eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Upper Division Clerk.

(2.) So far as the first respondent is concerned, she joined the service much later, that is on 3-4-1971 as Copyist. She was in due course promoted as Lower Division Clerk on 23-2-1975. She was however successful in passing in all the four papers of the Account Test examination on 6-1-1976. Thus though in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks the appellant is admittedly senior to the first respondent, the first respondent acquired eligibility for promotion by passing the Account Test (Lower) earlier than the appellant.

(3.) On the basis that a vacancy of Upper Division Clerk arose on 21-11-1982 the first respondent was promoted in that cadre by Ext. P2 dated 22-11-1982. Subsequently on further review of the position and having regard to creation of certain posts, the deemed date of promotion was revised by Ext. P3 and the first respondent was accorded a deemed date of promotion with effect from 15-11-1982. This was obviously done on the assumption that as on the date on which the vacancy arose the first respondent was duly qualified, whereas the appellant was not duly qualified.