The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ appeal challenging the single Judge's order that rejected the petitioners' claim for promotion based on grade instead of the pay band in the recruitment notification.
The writ petition filed by the appellants and the instant writ appeal were dismissed.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937
WA.No. 2464 of 2009 ( ) IN WP(C).16028/2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16028/2007 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01-10-2009
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
1. M.J.XAVY, LIBRARY ASSISTANT GRADE -II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, E RNAKULAM
2. A.C.NANDAKUAMR, LIBRARY ASSISTANT GRADE -II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SADEESAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
2. K.P.JOHNEY, LIBRARY ASSISTANT GRADE-II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
3. K.R.MOHILAL, LIBRARY ASSISTANT GRADE-II, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL,SC,KTDFC BY SMT.DEEPA THANKAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------W.A.No.2464 of 2009
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 13th January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the establishment.
by the High Court Service Rules, 1970. They applied to be considered for promotion in terms of a particular notification. That notification described the field of choice with reference to a particular pay band. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and the second respondent are in the same pay band. The learned single Judge turned down the plea of the petitioners that they had a preferential eligibility, since they were in the higher grade. What was decisive in terms of that notification is not any particular grade or inter se placement, but as to whether an applicant was
drawing emoluments in the particular pay band which was described in the notification. No dispute being available as to that
2
WA.2464/09
fact, the only way open to the petitioners if at all they were aggrieved by the inclusion of the different groups in one field of choice is that they could have, at best, challenged the notification for the recruitment by impeaching such inclusion of different categories on the basis of a pay band to identify the zone of choice. The learned single Judge was therefore abundantly justified in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment through this intra-court appeal.
In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
vgs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellants were entitled to promotion based on their grade rather than the pay band specified in the recruitment notification.
M.J. Xavy
A.C. Nandakuamr
The High Court of Kerala
K.P. Johney
K.R. Mohilal
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
