Kerala High Court
Aswathy K.R vs Sajitha G.S on 25 October, 2024
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2024:KER:79955
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
R.P. NO. 1096 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2024 IN OP(KAT)
NO.309 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ASWATHY K.R
AGED 36 YEARS
W/O SHIJU C.S., RESIDING AT CHERUKARA HOUSE,
PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683522.
BY ADVS.
S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
N.SANTHA
V.VARGHESE
PETER JOSE CHRISTO
S.A.ANAND
K.N.REMYA
L.ANNAPOORNA
2024:KER:79955
2
R.P.No.1096 of 2024 in
O.P.(KAT) No.309 of 2024
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SAJITHA G.S.
D/O K.SOMAN, SENIOR CLERK, DIRECTORATE OF
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, JALAVIJNANA BHAVAN,
AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 003, RESIDING AT TC 22/225, VAYAL
VEEDU, ATTUKAL, MANACAUD P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695009.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
3 DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT
DIRECTORATE OF GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
JALAVIGNANA BHAVAN, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIYAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003.
BY SMT.VINEETHA B., SR.GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:79955
3
R.P.No.1096 of 2024 in
O.P.(KAT) No.309 of 2024
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------
R.P.No.1096 of 2024
in
O.P.(KAT) No.309 of 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of October, 2024
ORDER
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner in O.P.(KAT) No.309 of 2024 has filed this
petition for review invoking the provisions under Order XLVII,
Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Code). The petitioner seeks to review the judgment dated
05.09.2024 in the said original petition on the following ground:
"As per the Special Rules, two years' service in the Department
is one of the qualifications for appointment by transfer to the
post of Chemical Assistant. This prescription of service is
qualified by the expression "Departmental hands (clerical
staff)" in the Special Rules. This aspect was not considered by
this Hon'ble Court while rendering the above judgment. This is
an error apparent on the face of the records, that has resulted
in the greatest miscarriage of justice."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
2024:KER:79955
R.P.No.1096 of 2024 in
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that when the Special Rules, specifically stipulate that
members of clerical staff in the Department having prescribed
qualifications alone are entitled to get appointment by transfer
and one of the qualifications is two years' service in the
Department, the 1st respondent was not qualified for being
appointed to the post of Chemical Assistant in Branch IV-
Hydrochemistry. It is pointed out that the 1 st respondent did
not have two years' service as a clerical staff since she was
given appointment by transfer as a Senior Clerk by category
change only on 03.10.2022 and the vacancy arose on
12.06.2023.
4. The fact that the 1st respondent entered in service
on 01.11.2016 is not in dispute. The question, therefore, is
whether one should have two years of service as a clerical
staff as different from the service of two years in the
Department to qualify. A plain reading in the Special Rules is
enough to answer the question. Qualifications insisted are
B.Sc. Degree in Chemistry and two years service in the
2024:KER:79955
R.P.No.1096 of 2024 in
Department. It is not two years' service in the clerical cadre.
The question whether the 1st respondent was qualified in the
light of the said provision was considered although not with
reference to the said aspect specifically.
5. When the qualification of two years in the service
of the Department alone is insisted, the Court cannot read in
that such service shall be in the clerical cadre. Prescription is
only that persons working in the department as clerical staff
alone are entitled for by transfer appointment, and not that
one should have put in service of two years' as clerical staff.
The said principle gets support from the judgment of this
Court in Sherry M.S. v. Kerala Public Service Commission
[ILR 2017 (2) Ker.254]. In view of the above, this review
petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
