The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition filed by three police constables challenging an order determining seniority. The Court held that since the petitioners did not challenge the Special Rules governing the matter, their prayers were unsustainable.
Suo motu direction to recast seniority list dismissed as Special Rules were not challenged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931
WP(C).No. 12401 of 2005(B) ---------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. P.DINESH KUMAR, S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.
2. P.SREENIVASAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE, CITY TRAFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE.
3. K.V.MOHAMMED, POLICE CONSTABLE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY.
4. SRI.ASOKAN, P.C. 5155, CONTROL ROOM, KOZHIKODE CITY.
5. SRI.PREMACHANDRAN, P.C.5156, V.A.C.B. SPECIAL CELL, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE.
6. SRI.MANOHARAN, P.C.5858, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE CITY.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU.T.K, R4 & R5 BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.K.A.BALAN, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.12401/2005-B:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO OF THE P.1. DTD. 30/04/1984.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO OF THE P.2. DTD. 30/04/1984.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.125/BO/HOME OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 26/12/1980.
EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE G.O.(P).NO.36/91/P&ARD OF THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 02/12/1991.
EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE D.O. 458/04-CC OF R.3. DTD. 28/04/2004.
EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BEFORE THE R.3. BY THE P.1. DTD. 13/10/2004.
EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L6/67438/05 OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DTD. 09/08/2006.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
WP.C. No.12401 OF 2005
---------------------------------------- Dated, 2nd day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are presently working as Police
Constables in the local Police in Kozhikode District. They approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order by which the Government ordered that the seniority of the Police Constables appointed to the District Armed Reserve from the Armed Battalions shall be determined by the date of order of his first appointment or date of first effective advice of the Public Service Commission for his appointment, as the case may be, to the post of Police Constables in the Armed Police Battalion. The first prayer is to quash Ext.P3. The second prayer is for a declaration that those Constables who joined District Armed Reserve later than the petitioners are not entitled to have seniority over the petitioners. It is also prayed for a direction commanding the 3rd respondent to recast Ext.P5 maintaining unitwise seniority.
WPC 12401/05
-:2:-
were joined in District Armed Reserve, Kozhikode later than the petitioners were appointed as Police Constables in Malabar Special Police (Armed Police Battalion) as advised by P.S.C. and entered in the force on 7.12.1983. Subsequently, they were transferred to District Armed Reserve, Kozhikode as per their option and reported at Armed Reserve Camp on 20.04.89 from where they were transfered to Local Police. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that , the Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve are being transferred to Local Police on the basis of the waiting list of A.R.Police Constables eligible and willing for transfer to local Police prepared as per the instruction contained in G.O(MS) No.145/74/Home dated 30.9.1974. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the Police Constables in the State consists of three units namely Armed Police Battalion, Armed Reserve and Local Police. Originally, direct recruitments were being made to both the Armed Police Battalions and armed Reserve. The recruitment of Police personnel to District Armed Reserve direct is stopped and Police personnel to both Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalion are recruited in Armed Police Battalion only. The personnel who are willing to transfer to District Armed Reserves are transferred to District Armed Reserves from Armed Police
WPC 12401/05
-:3:-
Battalions. In paragraph 5 of the counter, it is specifically stated that Police constables 5255 Asokan to 5501 Chathu were reported in that unit on 19.4.1989 on transfer from MSP, Malappuram. The above transfer is not ordered on the basis of loss of seniority. It is also stated that in the light of the observations made by this Court and Police Head Quarters Circular No.23/2001 dated 13.11.2001, the seniority list of the Police Constables eligible for transfer to local has been revised with effect from 19.4.2001 as per judgment in WA No.1525/94. As per the direction in the above case, Police Constables originally appointed in District AR upto PC 4299 were transferred to local against the vacancy arose before 19.4.1989, and PCs from 5155 to 5501 who were received on transfer from MSP Malappuram, who were senior to the petitioner according to P.S.C. advice list, were transferred to local against the vacancy arose after 19.4.1989, i.e., the date on which they were reported in AR Camp.
WPC 12401/05
-:4:-
to my notice that as envisaged by Ext.P3 order, rules have been amended and now the same find a place in the Special Rules and the said rules are not challenged in this writ petition. Thus according to the counsel for respondents 4 and 5, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the absence of challenge against the said rules. It is also pointed out that respondents 4 and 5 are persons whose seniority are protected as per the special rules and there was no proper and timely challenge at appropriate time. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the strength of Ext.P7, particularly the direction contained in paragraph 9 of Ext.P7, the 3rd respondent may be directed to recast their seniority. But the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that the above provision is applicable only in the case of Police Constables in the District Armed Reserve. But the petitioners are now serving in the Local Police and, therefore, the above direction is not relevant and applicable in the case of the petitioners.
WPC 12401/05
-:5:-
the above Rules, none of the prayers can be considered. As the petitioners, who are juniors to respondents 4 and 5, are now working in the local police and hence Ext.P7 is also not applicable.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the Special Rules, in terms of Ext.P3, I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE
kvm/-
WPC 12401/05
-:6:-
V.K.MOHANAN, J .
O.P.No.
JUDGMENT
Dated:..
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the seniority determination order and seeking direction to recast seniority list has merit.
Whether the petitioner’s seniority as Local Police constable can be determined based on criteria applicable to District Armed Reserve personnel.
Whether the prayer for quashing the order and directing recast of the seniority list is maintainable in the absence of challenge to the Special Rules.
P.DINESH KUMAR
P.SREENIVASAN
K.V.MOHAMMED
THE STATE OF KERALA
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE CITY
V.K.MOHANAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
