LexM. V. KURIAKOSE versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M. V. KURIAKOSE v. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS March 25, 1977 38 9 [M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Constitution of India, Article 16(1), whether attracted by violauon of ~ights claimed under agreenient or award-Article 32, whether re1nedy extends to the violation of such righ!s. A B The appellant was a mechanic in the service of the erstwhile Transport .Department of the Kerala State. He thereafter became an employee of the J(erala State Transport Corporation when the same was set up in 1-farch, 1965. Jn 1968, there wa" a settlement between the Corporation and its employees ~providing that a 'trade test' would have to be passed for promotion to· posts-in C the higher grade while "grade promotions" \vould take place upto the post of Assistant Cbargeman. Subsequently, in a dispute referred to arbitration, the A\vard provided that category-wise seniority, together with trade-test should .determine the promotions. The petitioner alleged that thereafter, the· Corpora- ,tion and the workmen agreed to promotions in his wing by seniority alone and consequently, the petitioner and some others were promoted. Their promotions 1Were assailed as violative of the award, and were set aside by the lligh Court. The petitioner filed a writ petitiOn under Art. 32 of the Constitution clain1ing D that his fundamental right under Art. 16(,1) had been violated. Dismissing the writ petition the Court, 1 HELD : The rights of the petitioner under an agreement or an award, if he had any such right, could not be identified with rights under Article 16 (I) .of the Constitution. The result of the quashing of the promotion order relat- .ing to a whole category of employees in the position of the petitioner was that .all similarly situated shared the same fate .and alL those in the petitioner's cate- E .gory and with his qualifications had been pla<:ed on an equal footing. The petitioner's remedy when he claims a benefit under an agreement or an award does not lie by means of a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. [391 G-H, 392 A-C] -- , . ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No .. 90 of 1976. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). M. K. Ramamurthi and J. Ramamurthi, for the appellant. T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and N. Sudhakaran, for respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, C.J. The petitioner alleges infringement of his rights under Articles 16 (1) and 31 ( 1) of the Constitution. He joined the service of the erstwhile Transport Department of the State of Kerala as a Cleaner in the Mechanical Wing in 1949. He was promoted to the post of Helper and then Assistant Mechanic, and, finally, to that of a Mech~nic. On 15th March, 1965, the Kerala State Transport Cor- poration was set_ up under s. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") so that he became a servant of the Corporation. He alleges that, as the Kera!a State is admirJstering the Corporation and appoints its Chairman and Mem- bers under section 5 of the Act, he is entitled to the protection given F G H • -) 390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 3 S.C.R. A by the State fo its servants. According to him, the Corporation i's really an arm or an agent of the State. We need not, however, consi- der the .correctness of this proposition as the petitioner has not, in our opinion, succeeded in showing how any of his rights under Article 16 ( 1) of the Constitution, and, even less, how any right of his under Article 31 of the Constitution could have been infringed, assuming that he is a servant of the State. B c D F G H It appears that on 10th July, 1968 there was a settlement in a dis- pute between the Corporation and its employees. Under this settle- ment, a trade test was to be conducted after inviting applications from lower grades of what are known as the "mechanical line", that is to say, Assistant Electricians, Assistant Tyre Inspectors, Stitchers, Solu- tioners etc. for filling up posts in the higher grades. It was men- tioned there that "grade promotions" will take place up to the post of Assistant Chargeman, presumably without a "trade test" but, even under this settlement, appointment to the post of chargeman could only take place on the basis of results in "Trade Test" subject to seni- ority. Indeed, it was stated there that Assistant Chargeman of more than three years service will be entit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.