IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1964 of 2006()
1. C.R.SOMAN, LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. SENIOR JOINT DIRECTOR (POLYTECHNIC
3. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
4. BINDU.P., LECTURER IN ELECTONICS,
5. JAYA.J.B., JAYALAYAM, S R P MARKET P.O.,
6. LEEMA.G., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
7. ANNIE.J. ZENATH.M.S., LECTURER IN
8. SHAJU LUIS.A., AYINICKAL HOUSE,
9. GEETHA.A.S., VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
10. K.A.RAJMOHAN, ARCHANA, THIRUVANGOOR P.O.
11. PARVATHI BHASKAR, LAECTURER IN
12. BINDU.C.K., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
13. REGI SAROJ.S.M., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS
14. JASMINE K.S., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
15. STELLA MARIA, LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
16. BEENA.M.S., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
17. MINI.C, KUNNATHU VEEDU, KOIPPADU,
18. SHARMILA.A, DEVINIVAS,
19. SANJAY K.CYRIAC, KANIYARAKATHU,
20. USHA RANI.T.D, LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
21. MOHAMED NAVAS.V, VAZHAPPALLY,
22. AMEER AZHAR.N.V., AMEER MANZIL,
23. SHAMNAD.P. SHAFI, P.S. HOUSE,
24. SOJU.S.S., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
25. ASSAINAR.M.C., LECTURER IN ELECTRONICS,
26. GEORGEKUTTY.P.P., LECTURER IN
For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/05/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.1964 OF 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated 23rd May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Writ petitioners joined the Department of Technical
Education as Workshop Instructors on 20.2.1997. Their probation was
declared on 20.2.1999. They acquired B.Tech qualification on 8.10.1998.
They were promoted as Lecturers by order dated 19.2.2000. It is the
contention of the appellant that when they were qualified and entitled to
be promoted, direct recruitment should not have been made. By Ext.P11
order, 10 candidates were appointed against reported vacancies, before
petitioners were qualified. Thereafter, 12 candidates were advised by
letter dated 21.6.1999 and they were appointed by Ext.P12 order dated
2.7.1999. Petitioners submitted Exts.P13 to P16 representations. They
were appointed as Lecturers only by Ext.P9. It is their case that after
their probation was declared, they ought to have been appointed and
when their probation was declared and they were fully qualified,
vacancies ought not have been reported and, therefore, they claim
seniority. Learned Single Judge found that 10 vacancies were reported
in 1998. Petitioners cannot claim any seniority as vacancies occurred
before declaration of their probation on 20.2.1999 and those 10
WA.1964/2006 2
candidates were also appointed in the vacancies that arose prior to
the acquisition of qualification by the petitioners. It is the case of the
appellant that respondents 14 to 26 were appointed in the vacancies
that arose after 20.2.1999, i.e., after acquisition of qualification by
the petitioners and after declaration of their probation. They are
claiming seniority above respondents 14 to 26. In the impugned
judgment, appointment of only 10 candidates were considered.
Review petition was dismissed because subsequent appointments
were not specifically argued in the writ petition. Petitioners are
entitled to seniority in the respective appointments made after their
probation was declared. In fact, respondents 14 to 26 are also made
parties in the writ petition. Despite service of notice, there is no
appearance for respondents 14 to 26. Petitioners have already given
representations which were rejected by Ext.P18 order. Even in
Ext.P18 only the question of 10 vacancies was considered. Even if the
seniority is refixed, they may get only notional posting. Therefore, we
direct the authority to consider the question of seniority of the
petitioners over the persons who were appointed after 20.2.1999.
Petitioners also shall forward a copy of this judgment to the authority
concerned with a further representation pointing out the dates they
are claiming for appointments and seniority and the first respondent
WA.1964/2006 3
shall pass orders on the same within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to all affected parties.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks