Govt Has Right To Decide Applicability Of Rules For Promotion In Its Dept; Courts Cannot Exercise Judicial Review: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision taken by the State Government in filling the vacancies to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) as per the unamended Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department ('Special Rules'), by underscoring the right of the Government in deciding the applicable rules governing promotion. Prior to the Amendment of 2010,...
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the decision taken by the State Government in filling the vacancies to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) as per the unamended Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department ('Special Rules'), by underscoring the right of the Government in deciding the applicable rules governing promotion.
Prior to the Amendment of 2010, the Special Rules stipulated that the ratio between direct recruitees and promotees in the matter of promotion would be 3:1. However, subsequently, the amended Special Rules fixed the ratio as 1:1 between the direct recruitees and promotees.
The Government decided to fill the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules in accordance with the unamended rules.
It is at this juncture that the petitioners who were working in the feeder category of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-III) approached the Court, seeking a declaration that the vacancies would have to be filled in accordance with the ratio based on the amended rules and not based on the unamended rules.
"...no employee has a vested right for consideration for promotion. The right of employees for promotion is based on extant rule as on the date of consideration for promotion. The Government has every right to take a decision as to the applicability of the rule which would govern the promotion. If the Government takes a conscious decision that the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules, the Court cannot sit on judicial review to overturn the wisdom of the Government," the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed in this regard.
The Court, while so observing, placed reliance on the decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors v. Raj Kumar & Ors. (2022), brought to its attention by the counsel for the petitioners which laid down that the sole requirement was to ensure that the Government's policy decisions were fair and reasonable and justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
"In view of the fact that the Government had taken conscious decision to fill the vacancies in accordance with the unamended rules, this Court cannot interfere with the decision of the Government," the Court thus observed while dismissing the plea.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Thulasi K. Raj, and Varun C. Vijay
Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader Vinitha B., and Advocates M. Abdul Vahab, A.V. Liyah, and S. Narayanan Nair
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Case Title: Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: OP (KAT) 189/ 2016