Disposed

M.Ramakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2009WP(C)/2060/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the State and the Chief Officer of Police to expeditiously review the seniority of Reserve Inspectors and promotees in the Armed Reserve Police as mandated by a prior judgment of this Court, dismissing the claim that pending Supreme Court appeals precluded this action.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 & 2 to review the seniority of the petitioners as called for in Ext.P1 judgment, to be completed within two months.

M.Ramakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 2060 of 2009(T) ------------------------PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶6

1. M.RAMAKRISHNAN, RESERVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PALAKKAD.

¶7

2. S.MOHAMMED KABEER,RESERVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU SRI.CYRIAC KURIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

---------------

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,HOME (K)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. SHRI.K.J.MICHAEL, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, WYNAD.

¶14

4. SHRI.V.DEVADASAN,ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, KANNUR.

¶15

5. SHRI.V.AJANTHAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVED (SECURITY),S.B.C.I.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

6. SHRI.P.A.CYRIL SHAJI, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PALAKKAD.

¶17

7. SHRI.P.S.SURESH KUMAR,ASSISTANT COMMANDANT, DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶18

ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R3 TO 7 SRI.M.SAJJAD FOR R3 TO 7 MR.ANTONY MUKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1,2

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WPC NO.2060/2009

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

P1 : COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP NO.3596/99 DATED 29/08/2006.

¶24

P2 : COPY OF ORDER ALONG WITH SENIORITY LIST DATED 31/05/2006 PUBLISHED BY R2.

¶25

P3 : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY R2 TO THE PETITIOENRS DATED 16/08/2008.

¶26

P4 : COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.G.O.(MS) NO.164/08/HOME DATED 29/09/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE.

¶27

P5 : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 23/10/2008 PROMOTING RESPONDENTS 3 TO 7 AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANTS.

¶28

P6 : COPY OF ORDER NO.6681/K1/09/HOME DATED 07/03/2009.

¶29

P7 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 02/11/1990 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN.)

¶30

P8 : COPY OF ORDER NO.L5-105435/91 DATED 23/05/92 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMN.).

¶31

P9 : COPY OF ORDER NO.L5/12965/02 DATED 26/04/2009.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶33

R2(a) : COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(Rt) NO.3241/99/HOME DATED 17/06/99.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C.) No.2060 of 2009

¶39

Dated, this the 18^th day of November, 2009

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The petitioners are working as Reserve Inspectors in the Armed Reserve Police. Though several prayers are sought, the only relief pressed before this Court is that respondents 1 & 2 should be directed to implement the directions in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2189/2002 and connected cases.

¶42

In Ext.P1 judgment, dealing with the appointment to the post of Reserve Sub Inspectors to the 50% quota earmarked for direct recruitment, this Court held that in the direct recruitment quota, there was a dearth of 47 candidates and that 40 candidates were already advised from the list and had joined for training. It was also held that in the direct recruitment quota, only 7 more vacancies could have been reported and only that much candidates could have been advised and appointed and those advised in excess of 7 based on the interim orders that were passed in the Original Petitions filed by such persons, were not eligible to continue.

¶43

WP(C) No.2060/2009

¶44

-2-

¶45

However, taking note of Ext.R2(a) Government Order dated 17/06/1999 issued by the 1^st respondent exercising its powers under Rule 39 of the General Rules of KS & SSR, this Court held that such excess appointees will have to take seniority from the date of the order.

¶46

This direction in the judgment, necessarily, will call for a review of the seniority of the persons concerned. However, review has not been undertaken so far, and it is therefore that this writ petition has been filed by two persons, who were promotee Reserve Sub Inspectors, who were also not party to Ext.P1 judgment, praying for appropriate directions for carrying out the review as directed in Ext.P1 judgment.

¶47

A counter affidavit & an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the 2^nd respondent. The first contention raised in the counter affidavit is that the facts noticed in Ext.P1 judgment are not fully correct. According to the 2^nd respondent, there were more vacancies available in the direct recruitment quota. This justification cannot be accepted for the reason that if respondents 1 & 2 have such a case, the remedy available to them is to seek review

¶48

WP(C) No.2060/2009

¶49

-3-

¶50

of the judgment or file appeal, which have not so far been persued. The other justification offered in the counter affidavit is regarding the pendency of SLP Nos.1500/2008 & 1504/2009 filed before the Apex Court against Ext.P1 judgment against the review of the seniority as ordered in the judgment. However, none has a case that the Apex Court has passed any order staying the implementation of Ext.P1 judgment. If that be so, respondents 1 & 2 are bound to implement the directions in Ext.P1 judgment and review the seniority as directed therein.

¶51

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 & 2 to review the seniority as called for in pursuance to Ext.P1 judgment. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶54

M.Ramakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Ramakrishnan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Damodaran Vs LIC

M.Balakrishnan Vs Commandant

P.Vasudevan Vs South Malabar Gramin Bank

Kerala State Pharmacy Council Vs State of Kerala and Another

S.P.Ajith Vs Kerala Legislature Secretariat