IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 13 of 2006()
1. V. SREEKANTAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
3. DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER)
4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
5. R. GOPINATHAN NAIR,
6. K.A. PUNNOOSE, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
For Petitioner :SMT.SANTHAMMA ISSAC
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS,SC,KPSC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :04/06/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 13 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed by
him seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records
leading to Exhibit-P10 and quash the same.
(ii)declare that the respondents 5 & 6 are not
entitled to seniority over the petitioner in any
category higher than that of Sub Inspector of
Police.
(iii)issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the respondents 1 to 4 to give the petitioner
promotion and all other service benefits including
time bound grade promotion and ratio based
grade promotion ignoring the regularisation and
reassignment of rank as shown in Exhibits-P6
and P8.
W.A. NO. 13/2006 2
(iv) issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the
respondents 1 and 4 to fix the seniority of the
petitioner in the post of C.I. of Police based on
the ranking in Ext.P-1 select list.”
2. Ext.P10 is a communication issued by the Director General of
Police rejecting the appellant’s representation against assignment of
seniority to respondents 5 and 6 above him in the cadre of Circle Inspector
of Police. The main grievance of the writ petitioner was against the
assignment of seniority to respondents 5 and 6 above him in the cadre of
Circle Inspector of Police. The appellants and respondents 5 and 6 were
appointed to the post of Sub Inspectors , General Executive Branch from
the quota reserved for ministerial staff in the Police Department. Initially,
as per the advice list, the appellant was senior to respondents 5 and 6.
Later, the Public Service Commission revised the advice list as a result of
which respondents 5 and 6 became senior to the appellant. The said
revision was made, based on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court
in W.A. No.1356 of 1991. The claim of respondents 5 and 6 for
promotion to the post of Circle Inspector of Police was reconsidered in the
light of the revised list in the feeder category. As per the D.P.C. list
published in the Kerala Gazette dated 12.9.1995, the appellant was
assigned rank No.29(A) and respondents 5 and 6 were placed above him.
W.A. NO. 13/2006 3
Apparently, going through the materials on record, the appellant did not
take any steps, known to law, to challenge the assignment of seniority to
respondents 5 and 6 above him in the D.P.C. list. For the first time, he
started demurring and filed representations against the seniority list of
Circle Inspectors published as on 1.1.2002. Ext.P9 is one of the
representations which was disposed of by Ext.P10. Going by Ext.P10, we
do not find anything illegal or irregular about it. The contesting
respondents 5 and 6 got seniority over the appellant based on valid
proceedings of the D.P.C. The said assignment of seniority cannot be
challenged in 2002.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time
when respondents 5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Circle Inspectors,
their probation was not declared and, therefore, their promotion was made
in violation of Rule 28 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.
An order, even if it is void, unless the same is set aside in appropriate
proceedings initiated before the appropriate forum by a person having
standing, will remain valid and binding. In this case, even assuming that
there was some infirmity in the order of promotion of respondents 5 and
6 passed in 1995, the same cannot be canvassed for the first time in
2002. So, we are of the view that the Director General of Police has
W.A. NO. 13/2006 4
rightly rejected the representation of the appellant. We fully agree with
the reasoning of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition.
The contesting respondents 5 and 6 got seniority over the appellant in the
cadre of Sub Inspector of Police on the strength of the judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court and their seniority in the cadre of Circle
Inspector of Police was on the strength of valid D.P.C. proceedings.
Therefore, the objection taken by the appellant against the promotion
granted to respondents 5 and 6 with retrospective effect is highly belated
and cannot be entertained.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR)
JUDGE
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
JUDGE
sp/
W.A. NO. 13/2006 5
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A. NO. 13/2006
JUDGMENT
4th June, 2009
W.A. NO. 13/2006 6