K V THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2003-3-122
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on March 20,2003

K.V.THOMAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jawahar Lal Gupta C.J. - (1.) Is the selection and appointment of respondent Nos. 7 and 9 to the Indian Administrative Service as notified by the Government of February 5, 2003 fair, legal and in conformity with the Rules? This is the short question that arises for consideration. In a nutshell, the petitioner alleges that the selection was unfair. The 11th respondent, the present Chief Secretary and a Member of the Selection Committee, had arbitrarily tailored the service record of the 9th respondent. He had graded him as Exceptional and Outstanding in the confidential reports for the relevant period of six years Viz. 1995 to 2000. These reports were actually written in the year 2001 and are identical in content. An unfair assessment was made. Thus, the selection is even tainted by malafides. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
(2.) The petitioner joined service in the year 1972. He held various posts. On 3/12/1990, he was appointed as an Under Secretary in the State Government. In the year 1995, he was promoted as Deputy Secretary. In March 1999, the petitioner was still further promoted to the post of joint Secretary. In the meantime, on September 6, 2002, the phe petitioner had been posted as Director of Treasuries. On his promotion to the pose of Additional Secretary, the petitioner was allowed to continue on the post of Director as held by him. He continues to hold this post even today. The petitioner maintains that the promotions were made on the basis of his consistently good performance.
(3.) Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 had similarly joined different posts in different Departments. The petitioner claims that respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and 9 have put in lesser years of service than him. He further maintains that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have lesser years of gazetted service to their credit. The petitioner claims to have held important posts. He lays a further claim to a consistently outstanding record, which is better than that of respondent Nos. 4 to 9. He claims to have become eligible for consideration for promotion to the I.A.S in 1998.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.