IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 325 of 2005()
1. S.HIMAN PATHUSA, SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. J. IYDE, SELECTION GRADE ASSISTANT,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/05/2007
O R D E R
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.
===============================
W.A NO.325 OF 2005
===============
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Radhakrishnan, J.
The original petition was preferred by the appellant herein
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 and also for a direction
to the first respondent to assign seniority to the petitioner in the
category of Assistant Grade I, Finance Department in the place of
2nd respondent and also for consequential reliefs. Learned Single
Judge found no error in Ext.P1 order and dismissed the original
petition.
2. The petitioner had filed a complaint that the contesting
respondent who got initial appointment to the post of Assistant
Grade I on 25/2/93 from the category of Typist, had been
assigned a notional vacancy to the post of Assistant Grade I w.e.f.
1/3/92 after the introduction of a new grade, i.e, “Selection
Grade” among the assistants of the Department and that he had
represented the matter to the Department for the appointment of
Assistant Grade I as early in 7/1991. The contesting respondent
had represented for the appointment of Assistant Grade I only in
WA 325/2005
: 2 :
the third week of January 1993. In the writ petition, the petitioner
therefore had made a request to reassign his seniority in the
Assistant Grade I category in the place now assigned to the
contesting respondent w.e.f. 1/3/1992.
3. We have considered the matter and we notice that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade I w.e.f.
25/7/1994 and the contesting respondent was appointed as
Assistant Grade I w.e.f. 25/2/93. The rank and seniority of both of
them have been fixed in accordance with the General Rules. It is
also noticed that as on the actual date of occurrence of the
vacancy, the contesting respondent had applied for inter
changeability and on the strength of that she was assigned
notional vacancy w.e.f. 1/3/92.
We therefore find no error in the stand taken by the
Government which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge.
Writ appeal is dismissed.
K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp