IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23921 of 2010(M)
1. M.K.RAJAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P(C)No.23921 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 30th July, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as an Upper Division
Clerk (Higher Grade) in the office of the Deputy Director (Education),
Thiruvalla. He was originally recruited as Lower Division Clerk in
Alappuzha District. He joined duty in the said post on 16.4.1984.
Upon the formation of Pathanamthitta District, employees working in
Alappuzha and Kollam Districts were given the right to opt the new
District and according to the petitioner, persons who exercised option
and got transfer and posting based on such option were all allowed to
retain their original seniority even in the new District. However, the
petitioner was arbitrarily discriminated in the matter and on his
transfer based on such option his seniority was not retained as assured
in the relevant orders. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to
the post of Upper Division Clerk and then he was given higher grade as
well. Later, the petitioner was removed from the seniority list as per
order dated 17.1.2002 citing the reason that he had not completed
two years in the L.D.C cadre. In short, the petitioner was thus
reverted based on the decision not to reckon the past service of the
petitioner rendered in Alappuzha District. The contention of the
WP(C).No.23921/2010 2
petitioner is that similarly circumstanced transferees were allowed to
retain their original seniority in Pathanamthitta District. Therefore,
according to the petitioner, it is nothing but a hostile discrimination.
The representations submitted by the petitioner were not properly
considered by the respondents. In the said circumstances, the
petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.30262
of 2009. The same was dismissed by this Court. However, in appeal
preferred as W.A.No.2840 of 2009 this Court granted the petitioner
the liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with the
statutory rules. But, the petitioner has wrongly approached the
Chief Minister. However, it was rightly referred to the first respondent
on 11.3.2010 as is obvious from Ext.P2(b). In short, the
representation moved by the petitioner availing the liberty granted as
per the judgment in W.A.No.2840 of 2009, is now pending before the
first respondent. According to the petitioner, any further delay in the
matter of disposal of the said representation would be prejudicial to his
prospects as he is to retire from service on 31.3.2011. Therefore,
the petitioner prays that the first respondent may be directed to
consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(s) expeditiously.
Evidently, the petitioner has moved Ext.P2(a)
representation in the light of the judgment of this Court in
WP(C).No.23921/2010 3
W.A.No.2840 of 2009. Therefore, the first respondent is bound to
consider and pass orders thereon. Accordingly, there will be a direction
to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a)
representation dated 6.3.2010 expeditiously, at any rate, within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. However, since the issue involved in the said
representation pertains to the seniority, before passing any order,
persons who are likely to be affected in the event of an order being
passed in favour of the petitioner shall also be put on notice.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS