2003 (4) TMI 561 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 8, Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KSSR).
2. Continuation of lien in the former service after appointment in another service.
3. Inclusion of names in the promotion list.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Rule 8, Part II of KSSR:
The pivotal issue in these appeals is the scope, content, and ambit of Rule 8, Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (KSSR). The Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court is under challenge. The appellants argued that Rule 8 does not apply to the non-official respondents as they cannot have a lien over two substantive posts in different services. The non-official respondents contended that Rule 8 is applicable to their cases, and the Full Bench accepted this contention.

2. Continuation of Lien in the Former Service:
The appellants argued that the non-official respondents, having acquired lien on posts in the Co-operative Department, cannot be considered for promotion and other service benefits in the Rural Development Department. They cited Rules 24 and 28 of the KSSR to support their claim that the non-official respondents had lost their lien over the posts in the Rural Development Department. The Full Bench found that there was no material to show that the non-official respondents had been confirmed in the Co-operative Department, thus their lien in the former service continued.

3. Inclusion of Names in the Promotion List:
The controversy also involved whether the names of the non-official respondents should be included in the promotion list. The learned Single Judge initially ruled against their inclusion, but this was challenged and referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench concluded that the appointments of the non-official respondents were made in pursuance of applications invited, sponsored, and recommended by the Government, thus falling under the exigencies of public service as per Note I of Rule 8. Consequently, the Full Bench's decision to include their names in the promotion list was upheld.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Full Bench's decision, stating that the non-official respondents' appointments were made in the exigencies of public service and that they had not been confirmed in the Co-operative Department. Therefore, their lien in the former service continued, and they were eligible for promotion. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.