IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 27296 of 2002(Y)
1. M. GOVINDAN, U.D. CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM,
... Respondent
2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR
3. P. SREENARAYAN, U.D. CLERK,
4. C.V. VIJAYAN, U.D. CLERK,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BHASKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, GDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :27/08/2008
O R D E R
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
O.P. Nos. 27296, 28896 & 37514/2002
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
The question raised in all these connected cases pertains to inter-
se seniority of LD Clerks in Guruvayur Devaswom. All the petitioners
were appointed as LD Clerks and all of them were later promoted as
UD Clerks. The issue cropped up only when promotions were given
from the cadre of LD Clerk to UD Clerk wherein respondents 3 and 4
in O.P. 27296 of 2002 were given seniority over the petitioner in that
O.P. The case of the petitioner in OP 27296 of 2002 is that he was
appointed against a regular vacancy on 6.1.1988 as LD Clerk while
respondents 3 and 4 were appointed later. However, the case of
respondents 3 and 4 is that they were appointed on the very same date
on which petitioner was appointed and going by Regulation 15 of the
Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Regulations, seniority will depend
upon the age of the persons who join on the same date in the same
2
cadre. Counsel for the Administrator of the Devaswom submitted that
even though Devaswom committee decided the seniority in favour of
the petitioner in OP 27296 of 2002 vide Ext.P8, the same is not correct
decision because it is in violation of Regulation 15 which provides for
seniority based on age if the contesting parties join the same date in the
same post.
2. Regulation 15 of the Regulations is not under challenge.
According to this Regulation seniority among persons who join in the
same post on the same date will be based on age and elder gets
seniority over the person younger to him. In this case, the accepted
position is that petitioner in OP 27296 of 2002 is younger to
respondents 3 and 4 and therefore the only remaining question is as to
the date on which all of them joined as LDC. It is immaterial whether
appointment is on regular basis or on temporary basis because in 1989
appointments of respondents 3 and 4 were regularised with effect from
the date on which they were provisionally appointed to the post of LDC
vide Ext.P10, which has become final. We therefore dispose of all
these O.Ps. with direction to the Administrator to verify the actual date
on which petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 joined the service as LDC
whether on regular or temporary basis, and grant seniority by applying
3
the above principle contained in Regulation 15 of the Regulations.
However, if respondents 3 and 4 were not appointed on temporary
basis on 6.1.1988 as claimed by them, then obviously petitioner in OP
27296 of 2002 is entitled to seniority. However, if they joined on the
very same date that is on 6.1.1988 then they are entitled to seniority, if
they are senior in age to the petitioner in OP 27296 of 2002. The
Administrator is directed to communicate his decision after verifying
the records without any delay. There will also be direction to the
Administrator to prepare a draft seniority list, publish the same and
finalise the same after hearing objections of all concerned. If any of the
parties wants to verify the records pertaining to the date of joining
service, the Administrator will permit the same.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge.
(V. K. MOHANAN)
Judge.
kk
4