K.C. UNNIKRISHNAN Vs. K. KRISHNAN,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the third respondent in the Writ Petition and the first respondent herein was the petitioner therein. The Writ Petition was filed mainly with the prayer to quash Exts.P4 and P5 which are respectively the minutes of the Board of Directors of the third respondent - company to grant promotion to the appellant herein and the consequential order passed by the third respondent herein, promoting the appellant herein to the post of Assistant Manager (Estate).

(2.) BOTH the appellant and the first respondent belong to Scheduled Caste community and both of them were originally recruited by the Kerala Public Service Commission under Rule 17A of the General Rules in the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and appointed as Field Assistants in the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited. Admittedly, in the said advice list and also in the consequential order of appointment, the first respondent was shown senior to the appellant herein and they had joined the Plantation Corporation of Kerala as Field Assistants on 1.4.1977. While they were continuing so, Oil Palm India Limited, the third respondent herein was formed under the joint venture of Government of Kerala and Government of India, as a subsidiary of Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited. While the third respondent was its subsidiary company, the employees of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala were given the option to join the subsidiary company, pursuant to which both the appellant and the first respondent opted to join the third respondent -company. Subsequently, their options were accepted and they were absorbed as employees of Oil Palm India Limited.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the first respondent was senior to the appellant in service and both of them had the same length of service. It was further contended that being senior to the appellant, the petitioner/first respondent was equally eligible for relaxation of qualification for appointment to the post of Assistant Manager (Estate) and, therefore, going by his seniority, he should have been preferred for appointment as against the said post when the third respondent took the decision to relax the qualification and to fill up the said post. Further, it was contended that the actions of the third respondent -company in the matter of relaxation of qualification and consequential filling up of the above post by the appellant herein, were arbitrary and discriminatory and as such, violative of the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.