2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1946 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2025 IN WP(C) NO.2000 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: P.R.JIJITH AGED 39 YEARS S/O.P.N.RAGHAVAN, DESIG: WHARF SUPERINTENDENT, SR.ATM’S OFFICE (E & O DIVISION), ERNAKULAM WHARF, COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682 003, RESIDING AT QRTER NO.M5/6, NEAR CASINO HOTEL, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN, PIN - 682003 BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ APARNA NARAYAN MENON CHINNU MARIA ANTONY THULASI K. RAJ RESPONDENT ( S )RESPONDENTS : 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PORTS, SHIPPING AND WATERWAYS, CABINET SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110004 2 THE COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI, PIN - 682009 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI, PIN - 682009 SRI T C KRISHNA DSGI IN CHARGE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 3 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J. 1. The claim of the appellant/petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager Grade-I has not been found in his favour at the level of the department as well as in a writ proceedings, leading to initiation of present intra court appeal. Petitioner at present is working at Wharf Superintendent Grade-II in the Traffic Department under the Cochin Port Trust and had made representation Exts.P6 and Ext.P7 for consideration of promotion to the post of Assistant Traffic Manager Grade-I owing to the distribution of the post with the strength. As per the document Ext.P4, there are two(2) posts of Senior Assistant Traffic Manager. Vide Ext.P9 in 2014 an advertisement was issued for filling up under direct recruitment, the post in question i.e., Assistant Traffic Manager giving cause to the petitioner to file representation by alleging that the respondents had not followed the roster 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 4 vacancy as well as the percentage vis-a-vis the direct recruitment and promotion as, previous to the distribution of post the person was appointed under direct recruitment, therefore, as per the assertions in the counter, the act of respondents in filling up the post as per the advertisement would amount to 100% reservation for direct recruitment. The aforementioned request was rejected vide Ext.P5, the contents of the same reads as under: “With reference to the above, it is informed that you can apply for the post of Asst. Traffic Manger Gr.I, if eligible, when called for filing up under Direct Recruitment by the Administration Department.” 2. Sri.T.C.Krishana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in November, 2016, i.e., prior to the distribution of the post/restructure, one person with name Sri.P.K.Biju was promoted and therefore, applying the percentage of two-third and one- third vis-a-vis the direct recruitment and promotion, the next two(2) posts have to go under the direct recruitment 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 5 and not by promotion. 3. Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that respondents have not considered redistribution of the posts while rejecting the case of the appellant for promotion as it amounts to 100% of volume and against the dictum of ratio decidendi culled by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Pawan Kumar [(2005) 2 SCC 10] cited before the Single Bench but did not found favour. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. 5. All the employees of the Cochin Port Trust are governed by the Cochin Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010. For consideration of promotion as well as direct recruitment, regulation 6 provides for maintaining the roster for each grade to show whether a particular vacancy should be filled by direct recruitment or by promotion. Regulation No.6 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 6 reads as under: 6. ROSTER OF VACANCIES A roster shall be maintained for each grade to show whether particular vacancy should be filled by direct recruitment or promotion. However, if a vacancy which is reserved for direct recruitment cannot be filled by direct recruitment, it may be filled by promotion and the next vacancy shall be filled by direct recruitment. Similar practice can be followed in the case of a vacancy reserved for promotion but cannot be filled by promotion method. 6. The emphasis is relied upon the non application of Rules Ext.P1(a) in filling up the post by direct recruitment to the extent of 66% i.e., two-third and promotion by 33% i.e., one-third. The contention that the exercise undertaken by the Cochin Port Trust by advertisement amounts to giving 100% reservation to direct recruitment, as they have to follow the roster point from the date of redistribution of post and it should not consider the previous promotions or appointments. In our considered view, such prayer is not acceptable for the reason that in case, before the redistribution of the posts, as per the 2025:KER:22585 WA NO. 446 OF 2025 7 existing rules which have not undergone any sea change or amendment, one post was filled up through promotion, the next two(2) posts have to be filled up through direct recruitment strictly as per the aforementioned rules. This is precisely the import of the judgment under challenge. The judgment of the Supreme Court was in respect of the vertical reservation meant for scheduled caste which is not the case in hand, therefore, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. We do not find any illegality and perversity in the order under challenge. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE nak