RAJAN POTTAYIL Vs. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as an Assistant General Manager (Legal) from 9.4.2013 onwards, has filed this writ petition challenging the order Ext.P12 by which he is reverted as Manager. The reversion is ordered while granting promotion to the 3rd respondent with retrospective effect.

(2.) The petitioner commenced his service in the Kerala Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for short) on 21.12000. He got promotion as Deputy Manager (Legal) on 1.6.2005 and thereafter as Manager (Legal) on 30.9.2009. He got further promotion as Assistant General Manager (Legal) as per Ext.P1 order dt.11.4.2013 w.e.f 9.4.2013.

(3.) The 3rd respondent commenced his services as Assistant Manager (Legal) on 10.8.1995. He was placed under suspension in the year 2002. He was promoted as Deputy Manager w.e.f 1.6.2009 and Manager (L) on 4.2014. Thus though the 3rd respondent was sufficiently senior to the petitioner he was denied promotion on account of the suspension and the vigilance cases registered as VC 19/2005 of VACB, Idukki and VC 3/2005 of VACB, Thrissur which are pending as CC No.5/2016 in the Vigilance Court, Muvattupuzha as CC No.6/2014 in the Vigilance Court, Thrissur. The case of the petitioner is that none of his promotions were made subject to any conditions or to any disciplinary action or to any writ petition, at the instance of the 3rd respondent. It is pointed out that M/s.Umeshbabu and Thrideepkumar had filed W.P(c).No.9894/2013 challenging the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Manager and Assistant General Manager. However, that challenge came out unsuccessful in Ext.P2 judgment. The promotions granted to the petitioner were not provisional. 3rd respondent never raised any objection against the promotions granted to him. It is also pointed out that the question which came up for consideration in the common judgment Ext.P2 was with respect to the executive orders issued by the Corporation introducing modifications in the procedure for making promotion, by conducting a competitive test for promotion. This Court held that when the promotions are governed by the Kerala Financial Corporation Staff Regulations, 1966 which are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 48 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1961, such regulations can be modified only in accordance with the method specified under the provisions of the Act. Seeing that the competitive test for promotion was introduced without amending the Regulations in accordance with the prescribed procedure, those modifications were held illegal. At the same time, as there was considerable delay even in raising objections, the writ petition filed challenging the promotion of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner submits that such a challenge was not there at the instance of the 3rd respondent when persons junior to him had challenged the same which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment.