IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23406 of 2007(J)
1. C.V.PAPPACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. K.T.CHACKO,
3. P.P.THOBIYAS,
4. KURIKESH MATHEW,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
3. JOSE KURIAN,
4. K.M.GEORGE,
5. NAJEEB MOHAMMED N.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
For Respondent :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 23406 of 2007 (J)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 21st day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P9 order to the extent the petitioners are shown as
Assistant Commandants on supernumerary basis in the Armed
Police Battalion is under challenge.
2. Short facts are that by Exts.P1 & P2 orders issued by the
1st respondent, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant
Commandants on supernumerary basis invoking Rule 39 of the
General Rules. While continuing as such, complaining of delay in
the matter of regularisation in the services, they approached this
Court in O.P.No.6668/1996. That Original Petition was disposed of
by Ext.P3 judgment dated 17/02/2003 directing that appointments
and promotions of the petitioners be regularised.
3. Meanwhile, Exts.P1 & P2 orders were challenged before
this Court in O.P.Nos.19716/1995 and 3750/1994. Those Original
Petitions were dismissed by Exts.P4 & P5 judgments upholding
Exts.P1 & P2. Subsequently, in compliance with the directions in
WP(C) No.23406/2007
-2-
Ext.P3 judgment, promotion of the petitioners was regularised by
Ext.P6 order dated 21/03/2005 Accordingly, they continued in
service, their probation was declared and higher grade was also
granted.
4. Still later, Government of Kerala issued Ext.P9 order
dated 23/06/2007 proposing to treat the petitioners as Assistant
Commandants on supernumerary basis. It is on the issuance of
Ext.P9, this Writ Petition was filed challenging the proposal to treat
them on supernumerary basis.
5. Another colleague of the petitioners’, who was also
proposed to be shown as supernumerary in a provisional seniority
list, approached this Court in WP(C) No.9039/2009. That Writ
Petition was disposed of by this Court by judgment dated
17/06/2010. In that judgment, mainly for the reason that the
judgment secured by the petitioner therein upholding orders
appointing, promoting and regularising him had become final, this
Court held that the Government could not have treated the his post
as a supernumerary one.
The reasoning adopted by this Court for sustaining the
WP(C) No.23406/2007
-3-
challenge in WP(C) No.9039/2009, applies with all force to this case
also. Therefore, for the reason as assigned in the judgment in
WP(C) No.9039/2009, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, Ext.P9 to the extent it proposes to treat the petitioners
as supernumerary Assistant Commandants cannot be sustained and
is set aside. The petitioners will be entitled to pay consequential
benefits.
This writ petition is allowed as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg