P.P. Thomas vs Cochin Port Trust, The Chairman, Cochin Port Trust and Chief Mechanical Engineer

A.K. Basheer, J.—Appellant is working as Assistant Foreman(Power House) in Cochin Port Trust. Being aggrieved by the denial of promotion to him to the post of Foreman(PH), the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the following reliefs:

i. to call for the records relating to Exhibit P21 and P22 and to quash those orders;

ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to include the respective service trade qualification possessed by petitioner for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH) in the Cochin Port Trust if necessary by amendment of the concerned RR;

iii. to direct the respondents to promote and to post petitioner to any one of the existing two vacancies of Foreman(PH);

iv. to declare that petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH) under the 1st and 2nd respondents;

v. to allow the cost of this petition.

It was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that the qualifications possessed by him were equivalent to those prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH). However, his employer refused to recognize his qualifications as equivalent to the requisite qualifications prescribed under Ext. P5 Recruitment Rules and denied him promotion. Challenging the above decision reflected in Ext. P21 and P22 the Writ Petition was filed.

The learned Single Judge after considering the relevant rules and other materials available on record repelled the contentions raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

It is beyond controversy that the qualifications of the appellant are SSLC with NAC(National Apprenticeship Certificate) issued by the Indian Navy. The qualifications prescribed for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH) under Ext. P5 Recruitment Rules are extracted here under.

SSLC with ITI Wireman/Electrician or its equivalent with two years experience as Assistant Foreman(PH) or 4 years experience as Chargeman (PH).

According to the appellant he had been working as Assistant Foreman(PH) since 2002 on the strength of the qualifications possessed by him. If the qualifications to his credit were recognised as good enough to promote him as Assistant Foreman(PH) from the post of Chargeman, it does not stand to reason as to why the very same qualifications could not be treated as sufficient for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH), it is contended by the appellant. It is further contended by him that a higher qualification presupposes acquisition of lower qualification like ITI.

However, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 1 it was pointed out that the appellant was not promoted, since he admittedly did not possess the requisite qualifications as prescribed under the Rules. For that reason he was not included in the feeder category and consequently he was not considered for promotion.

In the subsequent statement filed by respondent No. 1 during the pendency of this writ appeal it has been reiterated that the qualifications possessed by the appellant are neither equivalent nor higher than the prescribed qualification for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH). The Board of Trustees of the respondent after taking the above view had further referred the matter to the Trustee representing Navy on the Board of Trustees in order to get its views as well. Thereafter the Trustee representing the Navy forwarded his opinion as reflected in Annexure R1(b). In the said communication it has been stated thus:

whereas the Recruitment Rules of Cochin Port Trust for the post of Foreman Power House requires the departmental candidate to have minimum educational qualification of SSLC and trade qualification of ITI Wireman/Electrician or its equivalent; the trade experience of Shri.P.P.Thomas(appellant) while in the Navy though of a higher grade(being NAC) is of a different trade, viz, Mechanical. The candidate, therefore, does not qualify for promotion as per the existing rules.

As mentioned earlier there is no dispute that the appellant does not possess the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Foreman(PH) under Ext. P5 Recruitment Rules. It is also conceded by the appellant that his qualifications are essentially in the mechanical stream, whereas the qualification prescribed for the post of Foreman(PH) have to be under the Electrical stream. But the contention of the appellant is that he had worked as Generator Operator and often discharged duties of bulk supply distribution(Switch Board Operator) and assisted in Generator maintenance in the Electrical wing of the Port Trust with the qualifications possessed by him for nearly two decades. Therefore it cannot now be said that he is not eligible to be promoted as Foreman(PH). In this context the learned Counsel has invited my attention to an averment in the counter affidavit that NAC in Diesel Mechanic or motor mechanical trade would be the only suitable qualification for the job of Foreman in Power House Department. Even if this averment carries any significance it will not help the appellant when his qualifications are considered in the light of Ext. P5 Recruitment Rules. It is in this context the appellant has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to include the respective service trade qualifications possessed by him in the Recruitment Rules through amendment.

While considering the above contention, the learned Single Judge noticed that the appellant had not challenged the Recruitment Rules. The Rules have been framed by the authority competent to do so in terms of the policy governing the recruitment, promotion etc. The Court cannot direct the rule making authority to make a rule or amend the same in a particular manner. Of course, the Court can examine the validity of any rule within the well settled legal parameters. The learned Judge had referred to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Pankajaksy v. George Mathew 1987(2) KLT 723 while considering the above aspect.

The learned Single Judge had also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in P.M. Latha and Another Vs. State of Kerala and Others, in which it was laid down that the prescription of qualification for a particular post is a matter of recruitment policy.

Having considered the entire matter, we do not find any illegality or error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. The Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.