Kerala High Court
P.R.Jijith vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2025
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
P.R.JIJITH
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.P.N.RAGHAVAN, DESIG: WHARF SUPERINTENDENT, SR.ATM'S
OFFICE (E & O DIVISION), ERNAKULAM WHARF, COCHIN PORT
AUTHORITY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, RESIDING AT
QRTER NO.M5/6, NEAR CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGDON ISLAND,
COCHIN, PIN - 682003
BY ADVS.
KALEESWARAM RAJ
THULASI K. RAJ
CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
APARNA NARAYAN MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PORTS, SHIPPING
AND WATERWAYS, CABINET SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110004
2 THE COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI,
PIN - 682009
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI, PIN -
682009
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
2
SRI. T.C. KRISHNA-DSG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is working as Wharf Superintendent
Grade-II in the Traffic Department under the Cochin Port Trust,
has filed this writ petition claiming promotion to the post of
Assistant Traffic Manager Grade-I. The petitioner was initially
appointed to the post of Shed Clerk in 2005. The next promotion
is to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager.
2.The Ministry of Shipping (Ports Wing) Government of
India has framed the Cochin Port Trust employees (Recruitment,
Seniority and Promotion) Regulations 2010('Regulations' for
short) in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of
Section 124 r/w subsection (1) of Section 132 of the Major Port
Trust Act, 1963. The aforesaid regulations governed the
recruitment, seniority and promotion of the employees in the
Cochin Port Trust.
3. Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Regulations provides for
maintaining the roster for each grade to show whether a
particular vacancy should be filled by direct recruitment or
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
promotion.
Regulation 6 would read as under:-
6. ROSTER OF VACANCIES
A roster shall be maintained for each grade to show whether
particular vacancy should be filled by direct recruitment or
promotion. However, if a vacancy which is reserved for direct
recruitment cannot be filled by direct recruitment, it may be filled
by promotion and the next vacancy shall be filled by direct
recruitment. Similar practice can be followed in the case of a
vacancy reserved for promotion but cannot be filled by promotion
method.
4.The cadre strength of the Assistant Traffic Manager
(Grade-I) is 'two'. The appointment to the said post of the
Assistant Manager Grade-I has to be made from two sources,
i.e., 'up to 66 2/3% by direct recruitment and 33 1/3% by
promotion from Class-III employees in the scale of pay of
Rs.6170-11975' as evidenced in Ext.P1(a).
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only
two posts are there for appointment to the post of Assistant
Traffic Manager; both the sources are to be represented, and
the vacancies are to be worked out so that both sources get the
appointment. He, therefore, submitted that out of the two posts,
the quota for direct recruitment would be 1.32%, and for
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
promotion, it should be .66%. He further submits that the
percentage has to be rounded off in the manner that less than
50% has to be ignored, and if it is more than 50%, it has to be
taken as 'One'. If we round off the two vacancies between direct
recruitment and promotion, 1.32% has to be taken as 'one' and
.66% has to be considered as 'one' thus, one post would go to
direct recruitment, and one post should go for the promotion
quota.
6.In support of the submissions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of
State of U.P v. Pawan Kumar [2005 (2) SCC 10].
7.On the other hand, Mr. T.C Krishna, the learned Senior
Central Government Counsel, has submitted that when the
quota is unworkable, the roster system has to be made
applicable as provided in Regulation 7 itself. If we apply the
roster system, the first two vacancies are to be filled by direct
recruitment, and the next third vacancy is to be filled by
promotion. If suitable candidates are not available either for
direct recruitment or for promotion, the vacancy would go to
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
another source of recruitment, and the next vacancy would be
filled up by the source of recruitment, which could not be
appointed due to the non-availability of the suitable candidates.
He, therefore, submits that if we go by the interpretation as
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 50% of the
post should be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by
promotion. He further submitted that the court cannot amend
the recruitment regulation/rule or interpret it in such a manner.
8.I have considered the submission advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central
Government counsel.
9.Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the judgment relied on by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in Pawan Kumar (supra) reads
as under:-
"7.We do not find fault with any of the two reasonings adopted
by the High Court. The rule of rounding off based on logic and
common sense is: if part is one-half or more, its value shall be
increased to one and if part is less than half then its value shall
be ignored. 46.50 should have been rounded off to 47 and not
to 46 as has been done. If 47 candidates would have been
considered for selection in general category, the respondent
was sure to find a place in the list of selected meritorious
candidates and hence entitled to appointment.
8.It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that if this principle of rounding off is to be applied then the
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
percentage of reservation in scheduled tribe category would
come to 2 by rounding off 1.86, to the nearest higher value,
and in that case a candidate from scheduled tribe category and
not the respondent would be entitled to appointment. We
cannot agree. No candidate in scheduled tribe category has
chosen to lay challenge to the selection. We are also not aware
if there is any scheduled tribe category candidate available
and qualified for appointment consequent upon his having
participated in the process of selection. This plea of the
appellants is without any foundation and hence does not
deserve to be taken note of.
9.There is yet another reason why the judgment of the High
Court has to be maintained. The total number of vacancies was
93. Consequent upon the allocation of reservation and
calculation done by the appellants, the number of reserved
seats would be 47, leaving only 46 available for general
category candidates. Meaning thereby, the reservation would
exceed 50% which would be unconstitutional. The total
number of reserved seats could not have been more than 46
out of 93."
10.In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court was
considering vertical reservation on the post of Civil Judge (Junior
Division). While interpreting the reservation quota, the Supreme
Court observed that where the figure 46.50% is coming to the
quota for the general category candidate, it should be read as
47%, and where it is less than 50 %, it should be ignored.
11.In the present case, there are only two posts for
Assistant Manager Traffic Department. The 2/3rd of the posts are
to be filled up by direct recruitment and 1/3rd by promotion. By
dividing two posts into 2/3rd and 1/3rd, this Court cannot amend
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
the Rule to make it 50% for direct recruitment and promotion.
To overcome such a situation, regulation 7 provides the remedy
that the vacancies are to be filled up by rotation between direct
recruitment and promotion.
12.In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the first two
vacancies for the post of Assistant Traffic Manager are to be
filled by direct recruitment, and the next vacancy is to be filled
by promotion. If the suitable candidate is not available for any
of the two posts, the same shall go to the suitable persons to be
appointed by promotion.
With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
D. K. SINGH
JUDGE
SJ
2025:KER:11398
WP(C) NO. 2000 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2000/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE COCHIN
PORT TRUST EMPLOYEES(RECRUITMENT, SENIORITY
AND PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 2010.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A-12011/2/2023-ESTT.
DATED 08.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY ORDER
NO.A4/DPC/MECHL./CL.I&II/2020/S DATED
02.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COCHIN PORT TRUST SCHEDULE OF
EMPLOYEES AS ON 01.04.2020.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B1/4/14/DR/ATM
GR.I/2022/T DATED 17.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE
TRAFFIC MANAGER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18.04.2023 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON,
COCHIN PORT TRUST.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
04.12.2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON,
COCHIN PORT TRUST.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A9/WELFARE/2021/S DATED
02.02.2024 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.2024/SGR/04
ISSUED BY THE INDIAN PORTS ASSOCIATION.
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF EXT.P1
REGULATIONS.
