SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P-4 notification No. DC (1) 5-12316/ 74 dated 18-6-1976 published in Part III of the Kerala Gazette dated 26 - 6 -1976. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the second respondent, the board of Revenue, Kerala State , Trivandrum, to include the name of the petitioner also in the select list Ext. P-4 assigning him proper rank among the Assistant salestax Officers/sales tax Inspectors.

(2.) THE writ petitioner, while he was working as head clerk in the Revenue Department, was included by the Departmental Promotion committee in the select list published on 2-3-1974 for appointment to the post of Assistant Salestax Officers for the year 1973-74. THEreafter, by Ext. P-2 order dated 14 - 3 -1974 he was provisionally promoted and posted as Assistant salestax Officer. Ext. P-1 is the final select list published on 31-12 -1974 after obtaining the approval of the Government.

(3.) THE Government Pleader appearing for the State submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee must be presumed to have the right and the power to correct the mistake, if any, crept in the course of the preparation of the select list, though there might not be any specific provision in the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules in that behalf. He also submitted that under Ext. P2 the petitioner was appointed only provisionally to the post of Assistant Salestax Officer and his probation in that cadre has not so far been declared. He also submitted that in Ext. R-1 proceedings No. A2-59201/75/tx dated 5-12-1975, the second respondent, the board of Revenue, had made it clear that all the promotions and seniority of assistant Salestax Officers appointed by transfer from 1967 onwards were subject to review by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which had to draw up year wise select lists from 1967-68 onwards. THE counsel for the petitioner has a case that the petitioner had already completed the maximum period required for the declaration of his probation and as such, even in the absence of a formal declaration that he had completed the period of probation, he should be deemed to have become a full member of the service in the cadre of Assistant Salestax officer. I do not think that it is necessary to go into this minor question at present. THE main question to be considered and answered is whether the departmental Promotion Committee is competent in law to review or revise a select list provisionally published and later finally published after obtaining the approval of the Government In the absence of any enabling provision, except for those mentioned in Rule 28 (8) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service rules I am of the view that it has to be ruled that the Departmental Promotion committee has no such power, and therefore Ext. P4 select list was prepared without competence in that behalf. Inasmuch as the petitioner's name is not included in Ext. P4 select list, I do not think that there is any need for quashing Ext. P4 THE purpose would be served if it is declared that the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the final select list published on 31-12-1974 shall remain and the appointment or promotion granted to him on that basis shall remain without being altered by Ext. P4 select list; and I do so. THE writ petition is disposed of as above. THEre will be no order as to costs. . .