IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 20221 of 2007(G)
1. B.PRASANNAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. A.B.PUSHPADHARAN,
3. R.LALU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR, GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT,
3. A.NAJUMUDHEEN,
4. K.M.CHANDHREN,
5. V.P.BALAKRISHNAN,
6. THULASIDHARAN PILLAI,
7. A.MOOSA,
8. K.P.MOHANADASAN,
9. M.MAJEED,
10. K.SASINDHARAN,
11. G.SOMANATHA PILLA,
12. M.VIJAYAKUMAR,
13. K.T.PUSHPAN,
14. P.ASHOKAN,
15. JAMES MANUEL.C.M.,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.G.MANOJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C). No.20221 of 2007
-------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this court
challenging Ext.P8 proceedings and also the accompanying
seniority list, Ext.P9, of Driller/Driller Mechanic as on 1.3.2005.
As per the earlier seniority list, the petitioners were assigned
seniority in the said cadre above respondents 3 to 15. The
basis of preparation of the seniority list was the date of joining
duty in the said post. But, recently, when the draft seniority list
was published, several persons filed objections stating that
seniority should be fixed with reference to the date of first
effective advice as provided in Rule 27(c) of the Kerala State
and Subordinate Services Rules. The said contention was
upheld and the seniority list was revised basing on the date of
advice, instead of the date of joining duty. The petitioners,
who joined duty earlier, though juniors in the advice list, are
aggrieved by the present re-arrangement of the seniority list.
So, this writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P8 and P9.
W.P.(C). No.20221 of 2007
:: 2 ::
2. The main ground of attack is that there is
considerable delay in revising the seniority list and therefore,
the petitioners are entitled to sit back.
3. The petitioners have raised only the above
technical contention. On merits, they do not have any case.
The Government themselves, at the time of finalisation of the
list, have decided to correct the mistake committed by them.
I think, this court is not justified in interfering with the said
decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge