IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27586 of 2006(H)
1. JOSE MELVIN P.L.,
... Petitioner
2. PETER P.V.,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. CHIEF CHEMICAL EXAMINER TO GOVERNMENT,
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),
4. RAJALAKSHMI,
5. ASHOK KUMAR,
6. JOSEPH,
For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :19/10/2006
O R D E R
K.K.DENESAN, J.
-----------------------------
WP(C)No. 27586 OF 2006
-----------------------------
Dated this the 19th October, 2006.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are Junior Scientific Officers in the
Regional Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory. The question
raised by the petitioners for consideration is one relating
to the assignment of seniority to direct recruits and in-
service persons which attracts the proviso to Rule 27(a)
introduced as per G.O(P) 41/90 dated 17.9.1990. It is
contended that in-service persons promoted temporarily
under Rule 31(a)(i) of Part II K.S & S.S.R are shown as
seniors to direct recruits by assigning them date of
promotion on a regular basis in the posts which ought to
have been earmarked for direct recruits by maintaining 1:1
ratio prescribed by the special rules. The contention of
the petitioners is that the proviso to Rule 27(a) referred
to above has been wrongly applied thereby prejudicing the
rights of the petitioners but assigning seniority over
respondents 4 to 6 with effect from the date of their
temporary appointment. It is the grievance of the
petitioners that formal orders declaring the probation of
the petitioners was delayed till 21.8.2006. Probation was
declared pursuant only to direction issued by this Court as
per Ext.P1 judgment dated 29.6.2006. The question of
WPC 27586/2006 2
seniority is kept open to be decided in appropriate
proceedings. Hence the petitioners have filed Exts.P6 and
P7 representations before the second respondent to rectify
the error committed in the matter of fixation of seniority
and to assign the petitioners due rank in terms of Rule 27
(a) of K.S & S.S.R.
2. The second respondent has not passed orders on
Exts.P6 and P7. This is one of the grievances of the
petitioners.
3. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and Govt.
Pleader for the respondents.
4. Since the question raised for consideration as per
Exts.P6 and P7 is one relating to inter se seniority
dispute, the second respondent shall issue notice to the
petitioners as also respondents 4 to 6, afford them an
opportunity of being heard and pass orders on the above
representations within two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of the judgment. The second respondent, if finds
that any other Junior Scientific Officer is likely to be
affected by the decision on Exts.P6 and P7, shall afford
such Officers also an opportunity of being heard. The
petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with
a copy of the writ petition for due compliance. Writ
petition is disposed of accordingly.
WPC 27586/2006 3
K.K.DENESAN
Judge
jj