08-17-2017, 12:27 AM
1. is it possible to pass inter-institutional year, transferred within five years from the date of hiring districtwise, BE right to retain seniority on the basis of these recommendations is the question that arises in this case. the answer depends on the interpretation of the 4-th subject to Rule 27, and notes () in Kerala and its terms of service.
2. on the basis of the provisions in the ranking for the position of lower division Clerks in various departments in Pathanamthitta district, the complainant was advised against the headquarters of a vacancy in the Office of medical education, Thiruvananthapuram, as in Ext.Pl tips from 08.10.1986 in Pathanamthitta District Office of the public service Commission. According to the complainant the Directorate of medical education have no single area of Pathanamthitta. Since posting the applicant headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram, without its consent, and vacancy happened ever since the Kingdom purpose sought by the complainant was the applicant, Pathanamthitta, at his request, was provided to the interdepartmental transfer to create income in the 2/21/1990, Pathanamthitta and then he was consumed by the rural development Department. According to respondents, the applicant with the interdepartmental transfer Goth year until the end of the five years of the initial recommendations, he has no right to retain his seniority, according to Guo (MS) 4/61/PD from 01.02.1961,
3. rule 27 Kerala service rules and its subordinated deals depending on length of service. Rule 27 (a) provides that "a person employed in the service sector, class, category or class Shall, if it has not been reduced to a lower rank, the punishment is determined according to the order of his first appointment to the service class, pol tica category or class" 4. a reservation, in accordance with rule 27 (a) of the rules reads as follows:
Also, provided that the employment of persons recommended by the District Office of the public service Commission for appointment to the vacant position in the headquarters without his desire and passed after receiving his appointment to district Policy choice is not insisting on a period of up to five years, should be defined with reference to the source data of his life in the District Office of the public service Commission.
There was a dispute as to whether the benefit provided accessible to interdepartmental also be recipients. It was a settlement of the dispute by a decision of this Court in the bench Director Industries v Sreedharan 1996 (2) KLT 370. To quote.:
The effect of this condition is that when a candidate who takes to the destination in the area is recommended for appointment to the vacant post at Headquarters, to continue the work without obtaining the consent of the person and subsequently placed in an area of his choice, his will had to be defined with reference to the data of the first effective consultation. In this case, the complainant was selected for appointment to the Kananorskom area. There were no vacancies in the Kananorskom area to absorb it. In this regard, he advised a vacancy in the Department's headquarters in Thiruvananthapuram. The Council, he joined the headquarters. Then he turned to the transfer of Cannanore. He was given a transfer, and he's got an ad in the Department of industry in cannanore. In accordance with the above, its rank in the Department of industry on the basis must be the first effective Council. Between the inter-ministerial condition Differential against inter-district transfers transfers. In our view, both will fall into a rage condition cited above.
4. during the interdepartmental transfer applicant in 1990 year, there can be no dispute that the claimant is entitled to benefit provided in view of the above decisions. However, the notes, subject to rule 27 4 () was introduced to the accordance with GO (P) No. 5/97/P & ARD from 02.22.1997 and officially published on 01.03.1997, which reads as follows:
Notes:-On the condition does not apply to me blo na or interdepartmental transfers.
The amendment was a retrospective effect from 26.09.1980 given. Ext. P2 is copy of amendments Amendment pol tica not questioned in this recording motion. target is only in regard to the retrospective work. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the right to development on the applicant in respect of 4-th RULE27 under the condition of () and the complainant speaking from the point of view of the subject, Said and choose to transfer interagency years in his native region, benefit, therefore, assessed the applicant could not be taken away from under subsequent legislation. Bet on Supreme Court decision in the case of service in the Indian Union against Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, in which it was held as follows.:
The legislature and the competent authority in accordance with article 309 of the Constitution of India is the power to make laws retroactive. This power, however, can not be used to justify