This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for seniority over the third respondent. The court upheld the impugned order, stating that since both were advised and joined service on the same day, the third respondent's seniority based on being older is correct.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931
WP(C).No. 19196 of 2003(I)
-------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
K.SASIDHARAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE MUSEUM AND ZOO, THRISSUR.
BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS AND ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. K.JAYAN, SUPERINTENDENT, GARDEN SECTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS AND ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R3 BY ADV. MR.B.RAGUNATHAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.19196/2003-I:
ORDER ON I.A. NO. 5396/2003 IN W.P.(C).NO.19196/2003-I
DISMISSED
06/11/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL RULES (G.O.MS). NO.386/62/0D DTD. 24/07/1962.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.MS.91/75/H. EDN. DTD. 07/06/1975.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL RULES ISSUED IN G.O.(P). NO.9/89/CAD DTD. 01/03/1989.
EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ME-985/90 DTD. 11/12/1992 ISSUED BY THE R.2.
EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ME-985/90 DTD. 20/09/1993 ISSUED BY THE R.2.
EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.287/98/CAD DTD. 13/08/98 ISSUED BY THE R.1.
EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.190/99/CAD DTD. 29/03/99 ISSUED BY THE R.1.
EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 422/98 DTD. 19/10/2001.
EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 22/02/2002.
EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).187/2003/CAD DTD. 23/04/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.1.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES.
EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.91/75/H. EDN. DTD. 7/6/1975.
W.P.(C). NO.19196/2003-I:
EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. R1A (1)31710/85/CW DTD. 24/10/1987. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/10/1997 OF THE KPSC TO THE R.2. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/01/2002 TO THE R.1.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C.) No.19196 of 2003
Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P10 order dated 23/04/2003 is under challenge in this writ petition.
also advised and appointed on the same day, and he too joined the post of Curator Gr.II at N.H.Museum on 20/11/1985. Both the appointments were against temporary vacancies. While the petitioner's appointment was regularised with effect from 20/11/1985, the 3rd respondent was thrown out of service on 03/07/1986 for want of vacancies.
WP(C) No.19196/2003
-2-
petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.6235/1991 and that was dismissed on the ground that the promotion to the post of Curator Gr.I was unit wise, and as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were working in different units, even if the 3rd respondent was promoted, the petitioner had no grievance. He filed Writ Appeal No.422/1998. During the pendency of the original petition, by Ext.P5 order dated 20/09/1993, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were promoted as Curator Gr.I with effect from 11/12/1992. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Superintendent by Ext.P6 order dated 13/08/1998, and the petitioner was also promoted by Ext.P7 order dated 29/03/1999.
WP(C) No.19196/2003
-3-
A reading of Ext.P10 shows that the 3rd respondent has been held eligible for earliest effective advice from 30/05/1985 both having been advised and joined service on the same day and as the 3rd respondent is elder in age to the petitioner. If so, the seniority assigned to the 3rd respondent over the petitioner cannot be faulted. This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority over the third respondent who joined service on the same date.
Whether the government order denying the petitioner's seniority claim is sustainable in law.
K.Sasidharan
State of Kerala, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Cultural Affairs Department
The Director of Museums and Zoo, Thiruvananthapuram
K.Jayan
Antony Dominic
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
