Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9954-9955 OF 2018
[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 7378-7379 OF 2017]
ANIL KUMAR P.P. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard Dr. Gopakumaran Nair, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Jaideep
Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State
and Mr. Vipin Nair and Mr.P.B.Suresh, learned counsel
appearing for the Public Service Commission.
3. The appellant is aggrieved since the High Court
has virtually set aside the orders passed by the
Government in exercise of their powers under Rule 39
of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,
Signature Not Verified
which relaxed the rigour of the General Rules and
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2018.10.06
12:35:53 IST
Reason:
Special Rules for the purpose of promotion of the
appellant from the post of Deputy Range Officer to
2
the post of Range Forest Officer, previously known as
Range Officer.
4. We see from the records that the Government had
applied its mind to the peculiar facts of the case of
the appellant and the invocation of Rule 39 was in
terms of equity and justice. But from the order
dated 23.08.2013, we find that the Government had
exempted the appellant even from the requirement of
undergoing training, which is the requirement for
promotion to the post of Range Forest Officer, on the
1/2
sole ground that the service left was only 4 years
as on the date of the order and after undergoing the
training, the appellant may not get sufficient
service. We fail to appreciate the rationale behind
it. If training is a requirement for appointment/
promotion to a post, unless there is an appropriate
satisfaction on the part of the competent authority
that in view of the experience, exposure and
expertise of the candidate concerned, it was not
necessary for a further training, there could not
have been an exemption from the mandatory requirement
of training on invoking Rule 39. We do not find that
there was such an enquiry in that regard and a
consequent satisfaction.
3
5. Therefore, we set aside the order dated
23.08.2013 and remit the matter to the Government for
consideration afresh, after affording an opportunity
of hearing to the appellant as well. Fresh orders
shall be passed by the Government within a period of
six weeks.
6. We make it clear that the impugned Judgment shall
not stand in the way of the Government considering
the representation afresh in terms of what we have
indicated hereinabove.
7. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed
of.
8. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed
having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case and the same is not to be treated as a
precedent.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]
New Delhi;
September 25, 2018.