IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1825 of 2009()
1. C.E.SANTHAKUMARI,
... Petitioner
2. M.G.RAJASHREE, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
3. T.S.JAYAPRAKASH, ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
4. LEELAMMA AUGUSTINE,
5. SUMAYYA HUSSAIN,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FOR
3. T.A.HUSSAIN KUTTY,
4. V.MOHANAKRISHNAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :07/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.NO.1825/2009
------------------------------
Dated this, the 7th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioners are the appellants. They challenge the
order vacating the interim stay granted in their favour. The
appellants were employees of the Revenue Department before
they joined the Rural Development Department. There was
some dispute as to whether the change in seniority in the
Revenue Department should be carried to the Rural
Development Department also. This Court, by Annexure R2(a)
judgment, produced in the Writ Petition, declared that any
change in the seniority in the Revenue Department as a result of
amendment of the Special Rules governing appointment to the
posts in that Department will not have any effect on the
seniority position of the employees in the Rural Development
Department. The matter was carried in appeal. During the
pendency of the Writ Appeal there was an interim order and on
WA No.1825/2009
– 2 –
the strength of it, the existing seniority list was followed for
promotion. Based on the seniority position in that list, Exts.P7
and P7(a) lists prepared by the Departmental Promotion
Committee were also published. Persons named therein,
including the appellants herein were promoted, subject to the
result of the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal was finally dismissed
by Ext.R2(b) judgment dated 14.1.2009. In implementation of
Annexure R2(a) judgment, which was affirmed in Annexure R2
(b) judgment, revised seniority list Annexure R2(d) was
published. Relying on Annexure R2(d), a fresh DPC list was
published in the official gazette dated 14.10.2009. Now, based
on that, persons included in that list are promoted. As a result,
the appellants will be facing reversion. Since the learned Single
Judge vacated the stay already granted, now they will be
reverted. Hence this appeal.
2. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar submitted
that the appellants are continuing in their promoted post since
2008. They are entitled to sit back. The learned senior counsel
also submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the
WA No.1825/2009
– 3 –
earlier list was operated and they were promoted. The said fact
was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time
of dismissal of the appeal. The select list was also not
challenged.
3. If we say something on the merits of the points
canvassed by the learned senior counsel, the same will affect
one side or the other. But, having regard to the principles of
balance of convenience, prima facie, we are of the view that the
persons now promoted should be allowed to continue in the
promotion post in preference to the appellants. Further, what is
challenged is only an interim order. Therefore, unless that
order is shown to be plainly arbitrary or perverse, the appellate
court is not supposed to interfere with the same.
4. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal is
dismissed. But, it is clarified that the learned Single Judge, who
is hearing the Writ Petition, shall consider the grounds urged by
the appellants uninfluenced by the prima facie view taken by us
WA No.1825/2009
– 4 –
in this judgment.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
C.T.Ravikumar,
Judge.
nm.