Quashed

T.R.Jayagopal v. Institute of Human Resources Development

Kerala HC17 Dec 2016WP(C)/11748/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revised seniority list (Ext.P7) where a third respondent was ranked above him without explanation. Court held the response order (Ext.P9) inadequate and quashed the list, directing the Director to reconsider and issue a reasoned order within four months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P7 order; directed Director to reconsider objections, issue reasoned orders explaining rank variation, and afford petitioner an opportunity of being heard within four months.

T.R.Jayagopal Vs Institute of Human Resources… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11748 of 2010 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAYAGOPAL T.R., SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT, MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, PRAJOE TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

¶12

3. REENA MANUEL, SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANT, MODEL TECHNICAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU R1- R2 BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, IHRD SRI.S.SUJIN

¶14

SRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 11748 of 2010 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.10.1998 ISSEUD BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF JUNIOR OFFICE ASSISTANTS IN THE 1ST RESPONDENT INSTITUTE AS ON 31.12.1999.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E5/1007/2001/HRD DATED 10.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E5/1182/01/HRD DATED 9.5.2002 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E5/10376/2004/HRD DATED 26.4.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF SENIOR OFFICE ASSISTANTS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EA1/13725/2009/HRD (1) DATED 10.2.2010 AND THE PROPOSED FINAL SENIORITY LIST.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.02.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.EA1/13725/2009/HRD(1) DATED 22.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EA1/13725/2009/HRD DATED 8.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

P.A TO JUDGE

¶24

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶25

-----------------------------------------------W.P.C.No.11748 of 2010

¶26

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P7 draft seniority list of persons under the service of 1^st respondent in the designation of Head Clerk. In that list he has been shown as being ranked 21 whereas the 3^rd respondent has been shown placed as rank No.6. The petitioner is aggrieved by this because, according to him the 3^rd respondent has always been junior to him, be that in the category of Junior Office Assistant or Senior Office Assistant or Head Clerk. According to him, the rank list of Senior Office Assistants, namely Ext.P5, shows that he is ranked as 10 whereas the 3^rd respondent's rank is 37. Similarly, according to the petitioner, in the original rank list of Head Clerks, namely Ext.P6, the petitioner is shown ranked as 21 whereas the 3^rd respondent is ranked 47. He then asserts that Ext.P7, which is a revised rank list of Head Clerks, suddenly and without justification, places the 3^rd respondent as rank No.6 in

¶29

W.P.C.No.11748/2010

¶30

¶31

detriment to his career options since he continues to be shown as rank No.21 therein. He, therefore, challenged Ext.P7 to the extent to which it places the 3^rd respondent as rank No.6 therein, by a representation before the 3^rd respondent, who rejected the objection vide exhibit P9 order. The petitioner has in this writ petition impugned Ext.P9 as being illegal and unconstitutional.

¶32

I have heard Mr.Thomas T.Varghese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.A.Muhammed, standing counsel for the IHRD. There was no representation on behalf of the 3^rd respondent. But however, since this is a case included in the “targeted for disposal” list, I do not deem it appropriate to adjourn it any further. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek rehearing if he is so advised, this writ petition is disposed of as under.

¶33

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the 3^rd respondent had always been placed below the rank of the petitioner be that in Ext.P5 or Exhibit P6. However, in Ext.P7 she has been given a jump to rank No.6 whereas the petitioner continues to be rank No.21 as he was placed earlier.

¶34

W.P.C.No.11748/2010

¶35

¶36

This is sought to be justified by the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent IHRD that the 3^rd respondent was granted this variation of rank on account of an order issued by the 1^st respondent as early as on 08.06.2000, wherein her earlier post of Library Assistant, in which she was working, had been equated to that of Junior Office Assistant with effect from 01.07.1995. This order has been produced along with counter affidavit of the 1^st respondent as Exhibit R1(b). In effect, the contention of the 1^st respondent is that since the 3^rd respondent had been reckoned as a junior office assistant with effect from 01.07.1995, which is much prior to the date on which the petitioner was appointed as such as per Ext.P1, her rank was revised in Ext.P7.

¶37

I have examined Exhibit P9 order impugned by the petitioner in this writ petition. As is discernible from Ext.P7 it is not an order which in any manner explains as to how the 3^rd respondent has been placed ahead of the petitioner in Ext.P7 list. It only, in a cursory manner, states that the objections raised by the petitioner is devoid of merits. It does not say how the 3^rd

¶38

W.P.C.No.11748/2010

¶39

¶40

respondent has been placed as rank No.6 even though she had all along been placed much below the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner therefore, is obviously justified, and it has not been specifically adverted to by the director in Ext.P9. It is leculent that the reason why the 3^rd respondent was placed above the petitioner in Ext.P7 was on account of Ext.R1(b) order mentioned above. However, this has not been so mentioned in Ext.P9 nor is there any explanation as to why the benefit of Ext.R1(b) was abruptly and suddenly given to the 3^rd respondent in Ext.P7 list after more than ten years and even though such benefit was not given to her in Exts.P5 or P6 list.

¶41

I am of the view that these are matters that will have to be specifically considered and answered by the Director of the 1^st respondent.

¶42

In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P7 order of the 1^st respondent and direct the Director of the 1^st respondent to reconsider the objections raised by the petitioner and issue orders with sufficient details as to why the 3^rd respondent has been placed ahead of the petitioner in Ext.P7 rank list. This exercise

¶43

W.P.C.No.11748/2010

¶44

¶45

shall be completed by the Director of the 1^st respondent within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of this case, I order no costs and the parties are directed to suffer the respective costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

TRUE COPY

P.A TO JUDGE

W.P.C.No.11748/2010 6

T.R.Jayagopal v. Institute of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.R.Jayagopal v. Institute of Human Resources Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.v.Haridasan Vs the Secretary

Pavitran Vs State of Kerala

K.K. Sadanandan Vs the Geologist

Manilal K Vs State of Kerala

M.R.Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

A.N.Kishor Kumar Vs Cochin Devaswom Board & Anr.