IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24533 of 2007()
1. SHERLY GEORGE,UPPER DIVISION CLERK,
... Petitioner
2. F.A.SHYLA,U.D CLERK,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/08/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 24533 OF 2007 U
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th August, 2007
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.
P16 and to declare that the 1st petitioner is entitled
for promotion with effect from 13-2-1986 and the 2nd
petitioner, on 11-6-1986. Petitioners also seek a
direction to the respondents to grant all consequential
benefits.
2. The 1st petitioner entered service as a Lower
Division Clerk on 3-9-1984 and on passing departmental
tests in 1986, her probation was declared on 10-2-1987.
The 2nd petitioner also commenced service as a Lower
Division Clerk on 28-11-1984 and on passing
departmental test in February 1986, her probation was
declared with effect from 25-2-1987. On 13-2-1986
though the 1st petitioner was promoted as Upper Division
Clerk, she was reverted by Ext. P1 order dated 14-7-
1988 and was later promoted with effect from 27-2-1997.
3. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned,
W.P.(C) No. 24533 OF 2007 2
she was not included in Ext. P2 seniority list and
hence was not considered for promotion. However, by
Ext. P4 order dated 3-4-1988 she was promoted as an
Upper Division Clerk with effect from 1-4-1987. Ext.
P5 is an order cancelling Ext. P4 order of promotion of
the 2nd petitioner based on a complaint made by the 1st
petitioner and another employee called Geetha and by
this order the 2nd petitioner’s promotion was made
effective from 4-5-1998. Her request for review of the
order was rejected by Ext. P7 and her pay was also
fixed accordingly. Thereafter Ext. P10 memo was issued
proposing to recover Rs.67,995/- drawn by the 2nd
petitioner excessively. She had also filed an appeal
against Ext. P7 order. That was rejected by Ext. P11
and her representation against Ext. P10 memo proposing
recovery, was also rejected by Ext. P12. At that
stage, the 2nd petitioner filed O.P. No. 2865 of 2003
challenging Exts. P11 and P12 and the case was disposed
of by Ext. P14 judgment directing reconsideration of
the matter. She again represented by Ext. P15 and on
its rejection by Ext. P16 which included an order for
recovery of Rs.67,995/-, this writ petition has been
W.P.(C) No. 24533 OF 2007 3
filed by both the petitioners, seeking the reliefs
mentioned earlier.
4. In so far as the 1st petitioner is concerned,
she seeks a declaration that she is entitled for
promotion with effect from 13-2-1986. From the facts
narrated earlier, it is evident that the 1st petitioner
was promoted initially to the category of Upper
Division Clerk with effect from 13-2-1986. Thereafter
by Ext. P1 order dated 14-7-1988 she was reverted as a
Lower Division Clerk and thereafter her promotion was
made effective from 27-2-1997. Facts also show that
the cancellation of Ext. P4 order of promotion of the
2nd petitioner as per Ext. P5 was made on the basis of
a complaint made by the 1st petitioner and another
employee. After Ext. P1 order, she did not make any
complaint or take any action against her reversion or
the order promoting her with effect from 27-2-1997. It
is only after almost two decades that she is making
this claim for the first time. If this claim is to be
allowed now that will be unsettling the settled
position of various employees and that is not
permissible. Apart from the delay that is involved,
W.P.(C) No. 24533 OF 2007 4
the persons who are likely to be affected by such pre-
poning of her promotion, are also not made parties to
this writ petition. Primarily for the delay and laches
in challenging Ext. P1 and the order making her
promotion effective from 27-2-1997, she is not entitled
to any relief.
5. In so far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned
though by Ext. P4 she was promoted as Upper Division
Clerk with effect from 1-4-1987, based on a complaint
made by the 1st petitioner and another person, Ext. P4
was cancelled by Ext. P5 and the promotion of the 2nd
petitioner was made effective from 4-5-1998. It is
this order that ultimately led to Ext. P16 which is
challenged in this writ petition. She is claiming that
she should be promoted in the vacancy on 11-6-1986.
While examining her claim for such promotion it is to
be noted that the probation of the 2nd petitioner was
declared only on 25-2-1987. For the period upto 24-2-
1987 the 2nd petitioner was only a probationer and none
of her juniors superseded her as Upper Division Clerk.
6. She is also not eligible to get promotion
during June, 1986 to August 1986 in the unfilled
W.P.(C) No. 24533 OF 2007 5
vacancies since none of her juniors were qualified for
promotion till the date of declaration of her
probation. Therefore the provisions of Rule 28A(1)
does not come to her assistance. It is also seen that
between 25-2-1987, when her probation was declared and
4-5-1998 the date from which she was actually promoted
as per Ext. P5, only her seniors were qualified and
were given promotion. Thus none has superseded her
during this period giving rise to any complaint. In
this factual background, 2nd petitioner cannot have any
sustainable claim to insist that she should be given
promotion with effect from 11-6-1986.
For the aforesaid reasons I do not find anything
illegal in Ext. P16 warranting interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ
petition therefore fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-