LexP. SUSEELA DEVI versus KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
P. SUSEELA DEVI A _..( v. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. FEBRUARY 12, 1998 [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHARAND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B .... ...__,,_ Service Law-Seniori~State of Kera/a-General Secretariat Service- Assistant Grade-II-Promotion to Assistant Grade-I-Criteria for promotion- Purely by seniority subject to fitness-Completion of probation-Period for c two years necessary-Appel/ant and respondents 2 to 9 appointed as Assistant Grade II-Appellant appointed prior to but joining subsequent to respondents-Vacancies occurring in Grade /I-None of them having completed the requisite probation period provisional promotion given to them-Appellant given seniority over respondents-Respondents 2 to 9 are ~ given the date of promotion which is prior to the date of promotion given D ~~ to the appellant, thus making the appellant junior to respondents 2 to 9- This was done because although the appellant was senior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assistants Grade IL her actual date of joining that cadre was later than the actual date of joining of respondents 2 to 9-As a result, earlier than the appellant and hence they became eligible for promotion E earlier than the appellant-Held seniority does not depend upon these fortuitous circumstances-In the provisional promotion list inter-se seniority of Assistants Grade II was preserved-Jnter-se seniority on the date of regular ~~ promotion was also required to be preserved. J Verghese v. State of Kera/a, (1981) KL T 458, referred to. F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4356 of 1984. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.84 of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 39of1984. G t- K. Sukumaran, Ms. Baby Krishnan, Ms. Karthika and R. Jayanathan for _..,., the Appellants . ... K.M.K. Nair for the Respondents. The following of the Court was delivered : H 879 880 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998) l S.C.R. A The appellant was appointed as Assistant Grade-II in the General Secretariat Service with the Public Service Commission by an advice dated 29.6.71. The Public Service Commission thereafter issued two further advice lists dated 4.7.71 and 14.7.71. Pursuant to these advice lists, respondents 2 to 9 were also appointed as Assistants Grade-IL The dates of actual joining B of various persons shown in these advice lists varied depending upon exigencies of the situation. However, in the seniority list of Assistants Grade- ...,.- II, admittedly, the appellant was senior to respondents 2 to 9. The next promotional post for Assistant Grade-II is Assistant Grade-I. The promotion is purely by seniority subject to fitness. To qualify for C promotion, Assistants Grade-II are required to have completed satisfactorily their two years' period of probation. On 3.7.73 a number of posts of Assistants Grade I were vacant. Since none of the Assistants Grade II were qualified on that date for promotion because they had not then completed their probation period, they were given provisional promotions by an order of that date. The D appellant as well as respondents 2 to 9 were thus provisionally promoted as Assistants Grade I by the order of 3.7.73. In this list also the appellant is shown senior to respondents 2 to 9. On 29.12.73, the respondent - Kerala Public Service Commission, issued an order giving regular promotion to 45 Assistants Grade II as Assistants Grade I. In the order of 29.12.73 respondents 2 to 9 are given the date of promotion which is prior to the date of promotion E given to the appellant, thus making the appellant junior to respondents 2 to 9. The respondents contend that this was done because although the appellant was senior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assistants Grade II, her actual date of joining that cadre was later than the actual date of joining of respondents 2 to 9. As a result, respondents 2 to 9 completed their period F of probation earlier than the appellant and hence they became eligible for promotion earlier than the appellant. That is why the appellant is shown as junior to respondents 2 to 9 in the cadre of Assistants Grade I. This contention of the respondents has been upheld by the High Court relying upon a full bench decision of that Court in the case of Verghese v. G State of Kera/a (1981) KL T 458. The promotion in the pres~nt case was dependant entirely upon the seniority of the person concerned in the cadre of Assistants Grade II. The seniority in the cadre of Assi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.