IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36424 of 2005(J)
1. C.ANIL CHANDRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. K.K.SUBRAMONIAN,
4. K.S.BADARUDEEN,
5. M.K.RAGHAVAN,
6. K.SURESHAN,
7. C.SATHEESAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
8. K.K.CHANDRABABU,
For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C)s.36424/2005 & 4508/2006
--------------------
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010
JUDGMENT
The issue raised in these writ petitions are connected and
therefore these cases were heard together and are being disposed
of by this common judgment. I will first make reference to the
facts pleaded in W.P.(C).36424/2005.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Overseer Grade-III in the Irrigation
Department under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.
Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Engineer (Mechanical)
in the Irrigation Department by Ext.P1 order dated 1.3.1995.
Respondents 3 to 8 being diploma holders also joined service as
Overseer Grade-III and were promoted as Assistant Engineer
(Mechanical) with effect from 15.3.1995. Challenge in this writ
petition is against Ext.P12 order dated 14.3.2005 by which the
seniority of respondents 3 to 8 was re-assigned in the cadre of
Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.8.1993.
3. Petitioner submits that in Exs.P4, P5 and P7 provisional
seniority lists of Assistant Engineers, petitioner was consistently
W.P.(C).36424/05 & 4508/06
2
shown as senior to respondents 3 to 8. These seniority lists were
finalized by Ext.P9 seniority list for the period from 1.4.1990 to
31.10.1998. In that seniority list also, petitioner in W.P.(C).
36424/2005 is assigned as Sl.No.37 and the petitioners in W.P.(C).
4508/2006 is assigned as Sl.No.38 and 39 respectively where as
the party respondents in these writ petitions were shown as still
juniors. It is stated that Ext.P9 seniority list was published on
22.11.2001.
4. Long thereafter representations were made by party
respondents in July and August, 2004, objecting to the seniority
settled in favour of the petitioners herein. It would appear that
respondents 3 to 8 also approached this Court complaining of delay
in considering their representations by filing W.P.(C).37212/2004.
That writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of their
representations. It was accordingly that Ext.P12 order dated
14.3.2005 was passed by the Chief Engineer, assigning
retrospective promotion to the party respondents in the cadre of
the Assistant Engineer with effect from 1.8.1993 as a result thereof,
respondents 3 to 8 have gained seniority over the petitioners
contrary to the seniority settled as per Ext.P9. It is in these
W.P.(C).36424/05 & 4508/06
3
circumstances, order dated 14.3.2005 was passed which has been
produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).4508/2006.
5. Petitioners contend that Ext.P9 seniority list having been
finalized and published on 22.11.2001, seniority position should
not have been reopened, at any rate after a period of almost four
years. It is also contended that their settled seniority has been
reopened without putting the petitioners on notice.
6. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent
what they contend is that the total sanctioned strength of Assistant
Engineers (Mechanical) is 49 and that the strength allocated
between Graduates, Diploma and Certificate holders is in the ratio
of 29:15:5 (6:3:1). It is stated that while publishing the seniority
list, there should have been 15 Diploma holders as Assistant
Engineer (Mechanical) and that instead, there were only 6 and
remaining 9 were kept vacant with effect from 1.4.1990 and that it
is on that basis, retrospective promotion has been assigned.
7. However finalised seniority list was published by Exts.P8 and
P9 as early as on 22.11.2001. Respondents 3 to 8 did not pursue
W.P.(C).36424/05 & 4508/06
4
their remedies against the seniority list by approaching this Court or
any statutory forums. Therefore, that seniority has become final. In
such a case, when seniority has been settled, it could not have been
reopened to the prejudice of the petitioners and that too without
notice to them. Admittedly, Ext.P12 has been issued by the Chief
Engineer giving retrospectivity to the promotions to respondents 3
to 8 without notice to the petitioners. In effect by Ext.P12, the
entire seniority settled in favour of the petitioners have been
unsettled which ought not have been done by the Chief Engineer.
8. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P12 in W.P.(C).36424/2005,
which is also produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C).4508/2006 is illegal
and deserves to be set aside and I do so. Necessarily, orders
reassigning the seniority to the petitioners shall be passed. This
shall be done as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two
months of production of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs