Writ petitions challenging finalized seniority lists and appointment orders were dismissed. The Court held the lists complied with prior judgments by excluding age and reservation, and the challenge to the appointment order was too belated.
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
THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 13442 of 2009(A)
---------------------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------------
1. K.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, ASI-H 1120, POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION SUB UNIT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. S.DILEEF,
3. C.O.BHADRAN,
4. B.VINOD,
5. H.KABEERKUTTY, ASI-H 1155, POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION SUB UNIT, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU.
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
W.P.(C). NO.13442/2009-A:
4. C.K.KRISHNAKUMAR, ASI-H 1047, POLICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUB UNIT, KOZHIKODE CITY, KOZHIKODE.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH, R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, SRI.S.A.ANAND, SMT.N.SANTHA.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C. NO. 13364 OF 2009 AND 1966/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.13442/2009-A:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURE:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SRO. NO. 848/83 DTD. 18/05/1983.
EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DTD. 19/04/2000.
EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE S.O.NO.145/00/TELECOM DTD. 01/12/2000.
EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE W.P.(C).NO.29211/2003 DTD. 17/09/2007.
EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE DRAFT SENIORITY LIST.
EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DTD. 18/09/2008 IN W.A. NO. 2953/2007.
EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11/11/2008 IN R.P. NO. 1169/08.
EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 30/01/2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.29122/08.
EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/02/2009 TOGETHER WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.
EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST DTD. 05/03/2009.
EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE P.5. DTD. 07/03/2009.
EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A3/9848/08/TELE. DTD. 30/03/2009.
EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE P.5. DTD. 30/03/2009.
EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT DTD. 24/01/1994.
EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DTD. 24/07/1986 ISSUED TO THE P.5. BY R.3.
EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 26/08/1986 ISSUED TO THE P.5. BY R.3.
EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 09/11/93 FROM THE R.3. TO THE P.5.
EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 24/07/1986 ISSUED BY R.3. TO SRI. ABDULVAHAB.E.
EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED VIDE ORDER NO. A3/9848/2008/TELE. DTD. 12/03/2010.
ANNEXURE -1: COPY OF THE ORDER SO.NO.46/2009/TELE. DTD. 26/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.3.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE I.A. IN O.P. NO. 29475/02-H OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
W.P.(C). NO.13442/2009-A:
EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD. 16/09/2004 IN O.P. NOS. 29475/02-H, 207/03-Y, 7122/03-W AND W.P.(C).NO.29211/03-C OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE R.P.1169/08 DTD. 18/09/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN W.P.(C).NO.29122/2008-E OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.13442 & 13364/2009&1966/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Issue raised in these writ petitions is common and therefore, these writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:2 :
criteria for seniority and principles of reservation were also applied. Ext.P2 provisional seniority list was finalised by Ext.P3 on 01/12/2000. The finalised seniority list was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.29211/2003 and connected cases. Those writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. In that judgment, the following directions were issued:-
(i) The impugned seniority list of police constables (Telecommunication) dated 1.12.2000, published as per S.O. No.145/2000/TELECOMM. is set aside.
(ii) It is directed that the official respondents will ensure the immediate preparation of a seniority list, after giving opportunity to the personnel to place all available documents to evidence their date of entry or such other matters, as may be relevant. A notice calling for such documents shall be issued fixing a cut off date for production of such materials. Individuals who seek to be personally heard shall be extended such opportunity.
(iii) The seniority list shall be prepared without applying any rule of reservation or communal rotation, so long as S.R.O.848/83 stands as it is.
(iv) Age shall not be treated as the criterion for fixing the seniority.
(v) All promotions and placements made on the basis of the impugned seniority list shall stand regulated by
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:3 :
this judgment and shall be modified in terms of the seniority list that shall be prepared as directed above. (vi) The final seniority list as directed above shall be prepared and published within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
the Writ Appeals, an interim order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court, directing the respondents therein to prepare seniority list as directed in Ext.P4 judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P5 draft seniority list was prepared and produced in the Writ Appeals. Subsequently, the Writ Appeals came up for final hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 18/09/2008, and were disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. In that judgment, taking note of Ext.P5 draft seniority list that was prepared pursuant to the interim orders, this Court left it open to the appellants to challenge the new seniority list. It is stated that although R.P.No.1169/2008 was filed seeking review of Ext.P6 judgment, that Review Petition was dismissed by Ext.P7 order.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:4 :
the counter affidavit filed therein, as Ext.R12(e), Ext.P14 order of appointment dated 24/01/1994 was produced by the respondents. Taking note of the submissions made, this Court disposed of the writ petitions by Ext.P8 judgment. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said judgment, being relevant, reads as under:-
“6. The stand taken by the party respondents in the counter affidavit filed and the Government are that the remedy of the petitioners that was left open by the Division Bench is only to approach the authority concerned under Rule 27B of the KS & SSR, by filing objections to the seniority list. The principles that were laid down by the learned Single Judge were never interfered with by the Division Bench and those directions have become final. It is pointed out that the earlier writ petitions were heard after taking out notice by publication. There was an interim order in the writ petitions to the effect that “operation of the seniority list of Police Constables (Telecommunication) dated 6.4.2004 will be subject to the result of the writ petitions” and hence any promotion obtained by the petitioners as Asst. Sub Inspector was by operating the seniority list dated 6.4.2004 which was subject to the result of the writ petitions. They also contend that the objections raised by the petitioners in these writ
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:5 :
petitions on the assignment of seniority are also not correct. The respondents have also produced as Ext.R12 (e), true copy of order No.A1-13399/93/Tele dated 24.1.1994 of the Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, Thiruvananthapuram by which 156 persons were appointed as Police Constables. This order was subsequently traced out by the department authorities and was produced before this court along with the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.29122/2008. It is pointed out that the same is the basic document for fixation of the inter-se seniority of the petitioners and the party respondents and therefore there is no difficulty to fix the inter-se seniority of the petitioners and the party respondents. It is pointed out that even though petitioners sought for a review of the judgment in the Writ Appeals, that was dismissed by the Division Bench by order dated 11.11.2008 in R.P.No.1169/2008 in Writ Appeal No.2953/2007. The Division Bench made it clear in the following terms:
“In writ appeal, we have granted permission to challenge the seniority list. If the seniority list prepared is altered, placements and promotions will be made according to the revised seniority list. Petitioners will be free to challenge regarding the correctness of the seniority list.”
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:6 :
The same has bee produced as Ext.R12(g). The learned Govt. Pleader submitted that material records are available for finalising the seniority list.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:7 :
sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not be able to go into the disputed questions of facts relating to assignment of seniority or to engage in an exercise by way of fixing the seniority of the parties concerned. That is for the competent statutory authorities to consider before the list is finalised. Therefore, I do not find any reason to adjudicate the contentions raised by the petitioners and these writ petitions are dismissed with the following directions:
The petitioners are given three weeks time from today to file objections to the seniority list as now published. (Ext.P10). The competent authority will consider the objections and pass final orders and publish the final seniority list within a period of two months from that date. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they may not be reverted in the meanwhile, in the light of the position made clear in the judgment in the review petition, no separate orders are necessary. Consequential orders regarding promotion/reversion, etc. can also be passed depending upon the said seniority list.”
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:8 :
Considering the objections, by Ext.P12, Ext.P10 provisional seniority list was finalised and Ext.P13 communication was also issued informing that the objections filed against Ext.P10 were rejected. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed on 07/05/2009 praying to quash Exts.P12 & P13 and to declare that Ext.P13 has been issued without following the principles laid down in Ext.P4 judgment of this Court and in an arbitrary manner.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:9 :
petitioners is based on the serial number of hall ticket. In support of this contention, the petitioners have produced Exts.P15 and P18, the hall tickets issued to two of them. It is on this basis that Ext.P12 seniority list is challenged.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:10 :
highly belated and cannot be entertained at this distance of time.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:11 :
was missing and was not recovered. It was taking into account the aforesaid situation, after holding that principles of reservation cannot be applied and that age cannot be adopted as the basis for fixing seniority, this court directed that the respondents shall reconstruct the file to the extent it is possible and permissible and decide the issue guided by rational and reasonable conclusion on the acceptability of the documents that are retrieved. It was on the basis of this direction that the respondents prepared Ext.P5 draft seniority list and produced before this court in the Writ Appeals against Ext.P4 judgment. After the writ appeals were disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, when Ext.P5 draft seniority list was challenged before this court in WP(c).No.29122/08, that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment. A reading of that judgment shows that by the time, the respondents had retrieved Ext.P14, the order appointing 158 candidates. It was recording that development also and relegating the petitioners to file their objections to Ext.P5 draft seniority list, that the writ petition was disposed of.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:12 :
recruitment file was not retrieved, respondents could retrieve `the link file'. However, pleadings do not show that any document was recovered by respondents on the basis of which they could have finalized the seniority, adopting any basis other than the ranking as indicated in Ext.P14 appointment order. Therefore, the respondents were led to a situation where they had only Ext.P14 appointment order, to be adopted as the basis for fixing the seniority and it was on that basis they have fixed the seniority also.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:13 :
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:14 :
uncertainty and discontentment leading to endless litigations.
WPC.No. 13442/09& ors.
:15 :
In view of the above, Writ Petition Nos.13364/09 and
1966/2010 are also to be dismissed and I do so.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE
vi/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the finalized seniority list and appointment order violate prior directions regarding composition and age criteria.
Whether the challenge to the appointment order is maintainable after such a long delay.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the seniority list under Article 226 after the competent authority has finalized it based on available documents.
K.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
S.DILEEF
C.O.BHADRAN
B.VINOD
H.KABEERKUTTY
STATE OF KERALA
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
