Dismissed

K.Gopa Kumar v. the Kerala State Public Service Commission

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016OP(KAT)/74/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an original petition where the petitioner challenged the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order quashing a request for earlier dating of advice and seniority in the Irrigation Department. The Court upheld the Tribunal's conclusion that a prior judgment did not grant specific direction for pre-dating.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

K.Gopa Kumar Vs the Kerala State Public… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

OP(KAT).No. 74 of 2016 (Z)

¶8

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN TA 6857/2012 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26-03-2014)

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

K.GOPA KUMAR,

¶11

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O KUNJUKRISHNA PILLA, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, RESIDING AT NAVANEETHAM, VENKAVILA, PAZHAKUTTY, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.K.AKHIL

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 1 695 004.

¶15

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (I & A), IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶16

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M. MOHAMMED SHAFI. BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

¶17

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP(KAT).No. 74 of 2016 (Z)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 08-02-2008

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTED 21-11-2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-11-2007 IN WP(C) NO 33817/2005 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28-04-2008 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20-06-2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶26

/TRUE COPY//

¶27

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶28

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶29

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶30

O.P.(KAT)No.74 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 16^th June , 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶34

This Original Petition is filed challenging Annexure A2 order dated 26.03.2014 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in T..A.No.6857 of 2012. The said Transfer Application arises out of W.P.(C)No.34196 of 2008 filed by the petitioner herein before this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P5 order dated 20.06.2008 and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to fix the eligible date of advice of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer(Civil) in the Irrigation Department as 17.03.2006. He has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to include his name in the right position in the seniority list of graduate Assistant Engineers(Civil) in the Irrigation Department as on 31.07.2006.

¶35

W.P.(C)No.34196 of 2008 which was pending

¶36

¶37

O.P.(KAT)No.74 of 2016

¶38

consideration before this Court was transferred to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, where it is re-numbered as T.A.No.6857 of 2012.

¶39

The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for since he is bound by the direction contained in Ext.P3 Judgment in W.P.(C)No.33817 of 2005, which has attained finality. The Tribunal noticed that in Ext.P3 judgment this Court did not order to advice the petitioner with effect from the date on which his junior in the ranked list was already advised, but only said that, in case the turn of the petitioner has already arisen earlier, he should be advised to the next arising vacancy. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the TA by Annexure A2 order dated 26-3-2014, repelling the challenge made against Ext.P5 order. Feeling aggrieved by Annexure A2 order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court in the Original Petition.

¶40

We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the KPSC and also

¶41

O.P.(KAT)No.74 of 2016

¶42

¶43

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶44

It was pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.33685 of 2005, the applicant was advised for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil) on 8-2-2008, vide Ext.P1 order. Thereafter he moved to Public Service Commission for pre-

¶45

dating his advice with effect from the date his immediate junior in the ranked list was advised. The said request was rejected by the Public Service Commission by Ext.P5 order stating that the benefit of Earliest Effective Advice need not be extended to the petitioner as this Court in Ext.P3 judgment has not given any specific direction to consider his seniority.

¶46

A reading of Annexure A2 order passed by the Tribunal would show that, after taking note of the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court in WP(C)No.33817 of 2005, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, as there was no specific direction in the said judgment to advice the petitioner with effect from the date his junior in the ranked list was already advised, the Public Service Commission rightly advised him against the

¶47

¶48

O.P.(KAT)No.74 of 2016

¶49

next arising vacancy and that, going by Rule 27(c) of the KS&SSR he is entitled to get seniority only from the date of advice. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there is nothing wrong with the stand taken by the Public Service commission in Ext. P5 order. We find that, the said reasoning of the Tribunal in Annexure-A2 order is perfectly legal in view of the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment.

¶50

In the aforesaid circumstances, we find absolutely no illegality or irregularity in Annexure-A2 order of the Tribunal in T.A.No.6857 of 2012. In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶51

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶52

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶53

K.Gopa Kumar v. the Kerala State Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Gopa Kumar v. the Kerala State Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.K.Narayanan Vs Union of India

A.K.Raveendran and Another Vs Secretary, Kerala Motor Labour Union

Santha Amma Vs Eriyattu Kuzhiyil Ashrad

Tomy P Joseph Vs Union of India

Mr. Ayoli Abdulla Vs M/S. Meezan Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

Ali Akbar Vs State of Kerala