IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2419 of 2005()
1. C.K. CHANDRA BOSE,
... Petitioner
2. R. VASUDEVAN NAIR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.CHATHUKUTTY NAMBIAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :19/08/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.2419 OF 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated 19th August, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The appellants/petitioners who retired as Non-medical
Superiors in the Health Department question the seniority list which was
published as early as on 11.4.1992. They were appointed as Leprosy
Health Visitor Trainees. According to them, when the final seniority list
was published, 25 persons overtook their seniority. It can be seen from
the records that the provisional seniority list was published on 1.10.1991.
Three months’ time was given for the aggrieved persons for filing
representations for correction of anomalies and the final list was
published on 11.4.1992, after consideration of the representations given
within the prescribed time limit. The petitioners filed representations
only after the prescribed time limit. In 1999 a writ petition,
O.P.No.13294 of 1999, was filed by the petitioners. In that case, the
representations were directed to be disposed of. Thereafter, the
representations were disposed of stating that the petitioners were
originally recruited as Leprosy Health Visitor Trainees and sent for
training. They failed in the examination and only subsequently when
they passed, they were absorbed in the service. Therefore, the seniority
W.A.2419/2005 2
list was prepared correctly. Apart from that, it was also observed that
the list was finalised as early as on 11.4.1992 and they filed the
representations for the first time only after the time limit was over.
After finalisation of the list, for a long time, there was no
representation against the final seniority list. So, the representations
were dismissed by Ext.P9, both on merits and on the question of time
lag. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on the
ground of delay. In this case, clearly `sit back theory’ will apply. If
the petitioners’ representations were allowed, the entire applecart
will be upset. Promotions given have to be reworked. Affected
parties are not impleaded. Since they did not challenge the seniority
list in time, it cannot be reopened. We agree with the views of the
learned single Judge.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
tks