C.C. Padmanabhan vs The Director of Public Instructions and Others

Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.—W.A. Nos. 241 and 242 of 1977 are against two separate judgments of a learned Judge of this Court. The question which arises is whether the transfers of Assistant Educational Officers as High School Assistants is a reversion, and whether the post of Assistant Educational Officers is a promotion post vis-a-vis High School Assistants. It was held by the learned Judge that transfer would not attract Article 311, as the post of Assistant Educational Officer was not a promotion post for a High School Assistant and the transfer from that post to that of High School Assistant was not by way of reversion. The learned Judge from whose judgment the appeals arise, followed two previous rulings of this Court in O.P. No. 2729 of 1967 and O.P. No. 3627 of 1974 both of which held that in spite of the extra allowance that the Assistant Educational Officer enjoyed, the post was not a promotion post vis-a-vis the High School Assistant. The correctness of this view has been canvassed in these cases and the matter was referred to a Full Bench as the previous Division Bench rulings were attacked.

W.A. No. 241 of 1977.--

Ext. P-1 dated 6th June 1977 is the copy of the order transferring Assistant Educational Officers who had completed six years of service as High School Assistants. Exts. P-2 and P-3 are consequential orders. Certain additional documents have been filed by C.M.P. No. 9198 of 1979. Ext. X-1 dated 25th July 1966 is a copy of G.O. Ms. 393/Edn. prescribing qualifications and method of appointment for posts of Assistant Educational Officers. The method of appointment is mentioned as by "appointment" from 1st Grade Graduate Teachers. We are not prepared to infer from this G.O. that the Assistant Educational Officer''s post was a feeder category to that of a District Educational Officer or was a promotion post vis-a-vis that of a High School Assistant. Such a conclusion seems to militate against the scheme and the provisions of the Special Rules. The orders posting the High School Assistants as Assistant Educational Officers, themselves, have not been produced. From the fact that the annexure to Ext. P-1 order of transfer referred to many cases of transfer of School Assistants as Assistant Educational Officers, as promotions, we are not prepared to infer that the post of Assistant Educational Officer is a promotion post in the sense noticed.

The Kerala Education Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 3--issued by G.O. (P) 186/72/S. Edn., dated 20th December 1972, enacted that no High School Assistants will be considered for being selected for posting as Assistant Educational Officers, unless they have passed the tests in the Kerala Education Act and Rules. By Rule 4 the Rules shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 4th January 1966. The expression "promotion" is defined in Section 2 of Sub-section (11) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules as appointment to a higher category or grade. The learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on Ext. X-1 filed in W.A. No. 241 of 1977 with the counter-affidavit of the Government. This is G.O. Ms. 393/Edn., dated 25th July 1966. By this, qualifications and method of appointment to the post of Assistant Educational Officers was prescribed. Method of appointment was from 1st Grade Graduate Teachers including 1st Grade Graduate Teachers in Languages. It was in pursuance of this order that the writ Appellants obtained their appointments. The counter-affidavit therefore states that the Appellants had accepted the position stated in Ext. X-1 that the post of Assistant Educational Officer and 1st Grade Graduate Assistants are interchangeable. The G.O. does not refer to promotion but only to ''appointment''. The same is the language used in Rule 3 of the Education Subordinate Service Rules. The scheme of the Special Rules which provides for the High School Assistant being the feeder category for the post of District Educational Officer militates against an intermediate grade above that of School Assistant and below District Educational Officer. The Assistant Educational Officers and the High School Assistants are on the same pay scale (except for the extra allowance drawn by the former), which again, renders it improbable that the former is a promotion post with respect to the latter.

Before us the argument was not that there was violation of Article 311, but that the transfer was arbitrary and violated Article 16 of the Constitution. On our finding that the post of Assistant Educational was not a promotion post with School Assistants, there is very little scope for this argument. And little material has been placed to show that such administrative transfers violate Article 16 of the Constitution.

We think the view taken in the previous rulings in O.P. Nos. 2729 of 1967 and O.P. No. 3627 of 1974 is correct. We affirm the said view. The result is that this writ appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

W.A. No. 242 of 1977 and O.P. Ms. 1791, 1836 and 1892 of 1979.--

In the light of our decision in W.A. No. 241 of 1977, this writ appeal and the writ petitions have to be dismissed. Indeed, no separate arguments were addressed in W.A. 242/1977 or the other writ petitions. We dismiss these, with no order as to costs.