JAIFUNNISSA BEGUM Vs. A. SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing writ petition No. 1843/86. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the rankings of the " parties as assigned in W. A. No. 340/87. Respondents 1 to 5 offered themselves for appointment to the posts of Lady Village Extension Officers in pursuance of the notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications. Respondents 1 to 5 were selected by the Public Service Commission and they were assigned rank Nos. 1,15, 126, 73 and 67 respectively. Ext. P-2 contains the special rules for the Kerala General Subordinate Service Posts in the Community Development Department made by the Governor under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution, prescribing qualifications, mode of appointment, training and seniority. The posts of Gramasevikas Grade II adverted to in these rules pertain to Lady Village Extension Officers, Gramasevkas Grade II having been subsequently re-designated as Lady Village Extension Officers. The appointment to those posts was by direct recruitment. R.8 of the said rules requires that a person selected by the P. S. C. for appointment should undergo training in one of the Gramasevak Training Centres before appointment to those posts. It is in accordance with the said provision that respondents 1 to 5 were sent up for training in one of the recognised institutions. At the end of the training, an examination was conducted and it is on the basis of the ranking obtained by the trainees in the final examination that rankings were assigned to them for determination of their relative seniority, as required by R.8. On the basis of the result of the final examination respondents1 to 5 were assigned rank Nos. 13, 19, 1, 3 and 4 respectively. It is on that basis that ranks were assigned to respondents 1 to 5 in the provisional seniority list dated 11th November 1981 as also in the final seniority list dated 26th September. 1985, produced as Ext. R-3(b) and it is on the basis of the rankings given in those lists that respondents 3 to 5 were promoted as Junior Lecturers by Ext. P-1, dated 13th February 1986. Respondents 1 and 2 having secured places below respondents 3 to 5, their cases were not considered for promotion when respondents 3 to 5 were promoted. It is in this background that respondents 1 and 2, approached this court in O. P. No. 1843/86 complaining that the appellants have acted in contravention of Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution, in denying them their legitimate right to be considered for promotion to the cadre of Junior Lecturers, when the cases of respondents 3 to 5 were considered. They came forward with a case that the seniority of respondents 1 to 5 stands determined with reference to the rankings assigned by the P. S. C. after their selection and not by the rankings assigned to them after the completion of the training and in accordance with the results of the examination held at the end of the training. The Learned Single Judge upholding this contention allowed the writ petition and quashed Ext. P-1, the order of provisional promotion given to respondents 3 to 5, on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to overlook the seniority of respondents 1 and 2. It is the said judgment that is challenged in these two appeals.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 5 were all selected by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the rules Ext. P-2, dated 8th September 1967. R.8 of the said rules which provides for training of candidates selected by the P. S. C. and in regard to determination of seniority of the candidates at the end of the training reads as follows: