KANAKALATHA .V. K. Vs. V.J. CHANDINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Writ Appeals have been filed against the Judgment in O. P. No. 473/94. The first respondent in the Original Petition is the appellant in W.A. No. 669/94 and fourth respondent is the appellant in W.A. No. 207/94. The Coconut Development Board is a statutory Board constituted by the Government of India. The employees of the Board are appointed by the Board in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Board under S.7 and 20 of the Coconut Development Board Act, 1979 (for short 'the Act'). The Chairman of the Board is the Chief Executive and functionary to discharge and implement the decision of the Board.

(2.) The petitioner in the Original Petition was appointed as Publicity Assistant in 1974 in the erstwhile Directorate of Coconut Development. After the formation of the Board under 1979 Act, she was promoted as Sub Editor and was continuing as such. In 1983 a Hindi Cell was constituted under the Coconut Development Board consisting of five officers.

(3.) The appellant in W.A. No. 207/94 was also officiating as Sub Editor (Hindi) from 14th February, 1989. The promotion to the post of "Hindi Officer" is from the category of Sub Editors. The petitioner in the Original Petition was promoted on ad hoc basis to the post of Hindi Officer. The fourth respondent challenged the promotion of the petitioner in O.P. No. 6772/92. In that Original Petition the Board was directed to take final decision on the question whether the feeder category for promotion to Hindi Officer should be restricted to Sub Editor (Hindi) or not. Subsequent to this, the Board passed a Regulation known as Coconut Development Board (Hindi Officer) Recruitment Regulations, 1993. Under the Regulations the method of recruitment is promotion, failing which by transfer on deputation and failing both by direct recruitment. In the case of appointment by promotion, the post of "Sub Editor" was included in the feeder category. The Regulations were submitted to the Central Government for its sanction under sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act. The Central Government sanctioned and published the Regulations by a notification on 12th November 1995. But while granting sanction to the Regulations, the word "Hindi" was added to qualify the post of Sub Editor and by this modification for the post of Hindi Officer, "Sub Editor (Hindi)" alone became qualified for promotion. The result is that the petitioner V. J. Chandini who was working as Sub Editor was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Hindi Officer and the fourth respondent V. K. Kanakalatha who \vas working as Sub Editor (Hindi) was qualified to be promoted as Hindi Officer. The petitioner V. J. Chandini challenged the provisions of the Regulations, as approved by the Central Government, in the Original Petition. She contended that under sub-s.(1) of S.20 of the Act, the Central Government was not competent to alter or modify the regulations which are submitted for approval. The fourth respondent contended that while granting approval the Central Government is competent to make any alteration or modification to the Regulations, especially in view of sub-s.(3) of S.20 of the Act.