IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 382 of 2009()
1. SURESHKUMAR.A
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S.AJI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :23/03/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. Nos.382 OF 2009 & 1737 OF 2008
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
W.A. No.382 OF 2009:
The appellants are LD Clerks working under the Director
of Technical Education. They say that the seniority list of LD
Clerks/U.D.Typist has already been finalised and published as
per Annexure A3 Circular dated 14.1.2005. As per the ranking
in the seniority list, the appellants turn for promotion has
already reached.
2. While so, the Director of Technical Education
published Ext.P2, provisional seniority list of LDC/UD Typist on
8.5.2007, which was followed by another list, Ext.P5 dated
26.4.2008. The appellants aggrieved by the above lists have
filed their objections, copies of which are Annexures A5 and A7,
it is submitted.
W.A Nos.382/2009 &1737/2008 2
3. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 herein approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20519/2008 praying for a
direction to finalise the seniority list of L.D.Clerks/U.D.Typist
under the Director of Technical Education. They also claimed
that the seniority list has to be finalised in the light of the law
laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala
[2006(2)KLT 817]. The learned Single Judge directed that the
2nd respondent shall finalise the seniority list taking note of the
law declared by the Apex Court in the above said decision. The
appellants submit that the said decision was concerning the
seniority dispute in the Registration Department and further the
Technical Education Department was always considered as one
unit for the purpose of seniority, promotion etc. Though
recruitment was on district-wise basis, there were no district
units for the said department, it is submitted. Therefore, the
decision of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala
has no application to the facts of this case. The learned Single
Judge should not have issued such a direction without hearing
the affected parties, it is submitted. On the above ground, the
appellants prayed for reversal of the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
W.A Nos.382/2009 &1737/2008 3
4. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents
1 and 2. They submitted that the decision in Sudhakaran’s case
will apply on all of fours to the facts of this case. In the
Registration Department also the State level unit was in force
and the official respondents in that case contended that there
were no district units in the Registration Department.
Therefore, the facts of that case are identical to the facts of this
case and therefore the law in Sudhakaran’s case will squarely
apply in finalisation of the seniority list in the Technical
Education Department also, it is submitted.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant seriously
disputed the above submission. We do not propose to go into the
merits of the above contention. But, we feel that such a
direction should not have been issued by the learned Single
Judge without hearing the affected parties. In view of the above
position, it is ordered that the Director of Technical Education
shall finalise the seniority list of L.D.Clerks/U.D.Typist in the
department of Technical Education, within the time frame
stipulated by the learned Single Judge. But, whether the
decision of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran’s case can be made
W.A Nos.382/2009 &1737/2008 4
applicable in this case is left open. Both sides may urge their
contentions and the Director of Technical Education may take
into account the rival submissions, while finalising the seniority
list.
W.P.(C) No.1737/2008:
Challenging the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20519/2008, the
persons similarly placed like the applicants in W.A.No.382/2009
have preferred this writ appeal. The learned senior counsel for
the appellant submitted that in the statement filed by the official
respondents in the appeal they have taken a stand that they do
not propose to disturb the settled seniority of persons appointed
till the year 2004. We do not propose to go into the merits of the
stand taken by the Government, at this stage. The Government
may take a decision, in accordance with law, considering the
objections filed by both sides. It is ordered that the directions
issued in W.A.No.382/2009 will govern this case also.
The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE)
ps