TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Deputation to Co-operative Department: Rule 8 KSSR deemed public-service appointments, so parent-department lien kept; promotion list inclusion upheld</h1> Rule 8 KSSR, being a deeming provision, treats appointments made pursuant to applications invited or sponsored/recommended by the Government/competent ... Entitlement for the benefit of Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 ('KSSR') - Non-official respondents have acquired lien on posts in the Co-operative Department - Whether their names were to be included in the promotion list - HELD THAT:- Rule 8 is a deeming provision and provides that the appointment made in pursuance of an applications invited, sponsored or recommended by Government or other competent authority shall be deemed to be an appointment made in the exigencies of public service for the purpose of Rule 8. A faint attempt was made to submit that the nonofficial respondents had lost their lien as they were appointed to posts of substantive nature. Reference was made to Rule 28 to submit that on completion of probation and in case of promotion, it is to be presumed that there was substantive appointment. The Full Bench has recorded a factual finding that non-official respondents have not been confirmed in the posts in the Co-operative Department. It has been specifically recorded that no material was placed to show that any order has been passed by the Co-operative Department confirming the concerned employees in their posts. With reference to Rule 24 it was noted that mere completion of probation does not result in automatic confirmation. It is a settled position in law that a person can be said to acquire a lien on a post only when he has been confirmed and made permanent on that post and not earlier. Thus, the Full Bench’s decision does not suffer from any vulnerability to warrant interference. Appeals are dismissed, 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
