Anil Kumar P.P. vs State of Kerala

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 Digitally signed by which relaxed the rigour of the General Rules and 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

sole ground that the service left was only 4 1/2 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.