Antony Dominic, J. 1. Respondents in O.A.549/12 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners. The said OA filed by the respondent herein was allowed by the Tribunal by Ext.P2 order dated 9.11.2012. It is this order which is challenged before us.
2. The respondent was working as Junior Instructor in the Kerala Craftsmen Training Subordinate Service. Rule 6 of the Kerala Craftsmen Training Subordinate Service Rules provides as follows:
“6. Training:- Only those who have successfully completed training in the Central Training Institute shall be eligible for promotion. However, the eligibility of those who have not been deputed for training by the Government for no fault of theirs will not be affected if they are otherwise qualified for promotion but such persons should undergo training after promotion.
Note:- For purpose of promotion to category IA, Junior Apprenticeship Adviser (Catering), Central Training Institute Training is not obligatory.”
Since the rule states that those who are not deputed for training for no fault of theirs will also be eligible to be promoted if they are otherwise qualified for promotion, the respondent was promoted to the post of Senior Instructor, although he had not successfully completed training in the Central Training Institute. He was thereafter deputed for training and has successfully completed the training in July, 2004. Subsequently, in July, 2011, he was further promoted to the post of Group Instructor. In the seniority list, he was assigned seniority with reference to the dates on which he was promoted to the higher posts of Senior Instructor and Group Instructor. However, subsequently, his seniority was reassigned in the post of Senior Instructor with reference to the date on which he successfully completed the training and consequently, he was reverted from the post of Group Instructor to the post of Senior Instructor. It was these proceedings which were challenged in the OA.
3. The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of Rule 6 did not provide for any time limit for successfully completing the training and that therefore, the fact that he successfully completed the training only in July, 2004 cannot lead to reassigning of seniority or reversion. The Tribunal also dealt with Annexure A12 Government Order dated 25.7.2012, fixing three year period for successfully completing the training, which was relied on by the petitioners herein. The Tribunal held that even that Government Order only provided that the training should be completed within three years on being deputed for the same.
4. Learned Government Pleader attacked the conclusions of the Tribunal and contended that the respondent could have been assigned seniority only on the basis of the completion of the CTI training. However, we are unable to accept this contention for the reason that there is no such stipulation anywhere in the special rules and particularly, in Rule 6 extracted above.
5. In so far as Annexure A12 is concerned, first of all, this order was issued only on 25.7.2012 and it does not show that it has any retrospective effect. Therefore, it cannot govern the case of the respondent whose promotion and completion of training were long prior to the issuance of Annexure A12. Apart from that, Annexure A12 only provides a three year period for clearing the training and nothing more.
6. Even apart from the delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the order of the Tribunal, on merits also, we do not find any sufficient reason to disagree with the conclusion of the Tribunal.
Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.
kkb.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge.