Dismissed

Radhaklrishnan N. v. the Managing Director, Kerala State Tour

Kerala HC3 Apr 2017WP(C)/11544/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the final seniority list and promotion orders for plumbers. It held that an employee entitled to appointment under internal promotion rules legitimately received seniority over open market recruits appointed in the same year.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions and appeals for quashing seniority list and promotion orders dismissed.

Radhaklrishnan N. Vs the Managing Director… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 11544 of 2011 (P) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. RADHAKRISHNAN.N,S/O.K.NARAYANAN, AGED 39 YEARS,(NOW WORKING AS SENIOR PLUMBER), TAMARID EASY HOTEL,KTDC,KOLLAM), RESIDING AT, KALLUVILA KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KUZHIYAM SOUTH,CHANDANATHOPPU.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAN.K.J,S/O.JANARDHANAN.C.K, AGED 46 YEARS,(NOW WORKING AS SENIOR PLUMBER, KUMARAKOM WATER SCAPES HOTEL, KTDC,KUMARAKOM), RESIDING AT KAMARAJ BHAVAN, KUMARAKOM,, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

3. SAJAN.S,AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.SREEDHARAN.K, (NOW WORKING AS PLUMBER, HOTEL CHAITHRAM,KTDC,, TRIVANDRUM), MULLUVILA VEEDU,NEAR PATTIKAVILA,, VAKKAM.P.O,TRIVANDRUM.

¶9

4. MOHANAN.T.K,S/O.KRISHNAN,AGED 42 YEARS, (NOW WORKING AS PLUMBER,BOLGATTY PALACE HOTEL,, KTDC,ERNAKULAM),RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE,, KUDAKKACHIRA.P.O,KURAMGATTULLI(VIA),KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KERALA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., MUSCAT SQUARE,, P.B.NO.5424, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. 2. A.K.SANIL,SUPERVISOR(MAINTENANCE), MUSCAT HOTEL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED,SC FOR KTDC LTD. R2 BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.N.SANTHA

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No. 11544 of 2011 (P)

¶14

APPENDIX

¶15

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶16

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE

¶17

EXT.P 2 : TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶18

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶19

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 3RD PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER OF 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF SENIORITY LIST OF PLUMBERS EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SENIORITY LIST DATED 21.06.2010

¶22

PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 16.2.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.2.2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶25

EXT.P11 :TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶26

EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF the RELEVANT PORTION OF RECRUITMENT, STAFF PATTERN AND PROMOTION POLICY 2007.

¶27

ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.3.11

¶28

ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF RANK LIST OF THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POST OF PLUMBER PUBLISHED BY THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 17/3/01

¶29

ADDITIONAL EXHIBIT P15 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE DATED 17/3/2001

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT -R2(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF ORDER NO.KTDC/P&A-1/1492/91 DATED 13.02.1991 OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KTDC.

¶32

EXT -R2(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.8.2000 IN W.A.NO.1329/1995-D OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶33

...(2)

¶34

WP(C).No. 11544 of 2011 (P) --------------------------- (2)

¶35

EXT.R1(A) : TRUE KERAL STAFF	COPY OF THE A TOURISM DE PATTERN AND	EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE VELOPMENT CORPORATION RECRUITMENT, PROMOTION POLICY RULES 2010.
EXT.R1(B) : TRUE 2.1.1	COPY OF THE 999	ORDER NO.KTDC/PA(3)/4234/98 DATED
EXT.R1(C) : TRUE STAFF	COPY OF THE PATTERN AND	EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROMOTION POLICY
EXT.R1(D) : TRUE RESPO	COPY OF THE NDENT TO THE	APPLICATION DATED 23.8.2000 FROM 2ND 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.R1(E) : TRUE 18.10	COPY OF THE .2010	CIRCULAR NO.KTDC/PA(6)/SL/2010 DATED
EXT.R1(F) : TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE 13.11.2010	REPRESENTATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.R1(G) : TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE 31.1.2011	DECISION OF THE 264TH BOARD MEETING
EXT.R1(H) : TRUE 10.2.	COPY OF THE 2011	ORDER NO.KTDC/PA(6)/SL/2011 DATED
EXT.R1(I) : TRUE 26.3.	COPY OF THE 2011	LETTER NO.KTDC/PA(6)/SL/2011 DATED

//TRUE COPY\

P.A TO JUDGE

IAP

ANU SIVARAMAN, J

==================

¶41

W.P.(C).NO.11544 OF 2011

¶42

==================

¶43

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2017

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶46

(i)call for records leading to issuance of Ext.P-7 Final Seniority list of Plumbers published by the 1^st respondent and quash the same, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari;

¶47

(ii)call for records leading to issuance of Exhibits P-8 & P-9 promotion orders giving promotion to the 2^nd respondent and quash the same, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari;

¶48

(iii)issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, directing the 1^st respondent to publish fresh final seniority list of Plumbers as on 21.6.2010 and direct him to assign due seniority and consequential promotions to the petitioners.

¶49

(iv) declare that 2^nd respondent is entitled to get junior most position in the newly selected post of Plumber as per Recruitment, Staff Pattern and Promotion Policy. and

¶50

(v) to issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

¶51

The contention of the petitioners is that the 2^nd

¶52

respondent, who had participated in the selection process to the post of Plumber along with them, has been

¶53

W.P.(C).NO.11544 OF 2011 2

¶54

granted seniority over them in Ext.P7 seniority list. It is contended that the petitioners had been assigned due seniority in Ext.P6 provisional list. It is contended that the 2^nd respondent had been permitted to participate in the selection process and had been given all preferential treatments as provided in the regulations governing the staff pattern. However it is contended that since the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent had been selected for appointment in pursuance to the very same selection, which is evident from the proceedings of the selection committee dated 19/03/2001, the grant of seniority to the 2^nd respondent was unlawful. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on Ext.P12 promotion policy to contend that such assignment of seniority was not proper.

¶55

The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the 2^nd respondent was already working in the 1^st respondent Organization and that he was entitled for appointment as Plumber, being fully qualified for the same in terms of the promotion policy in force as on the date when the vacancies were filled up ie. in the year

¶56

W.P.(C).NO.11544 OF 2011 3

¶57

The 2^nd respondent has also filed counter affidavit that he being an internal candidate was eligible for preference of appointment going by Ext.R2(a) Staff Pattern and Promotion Policy which was in force at the relevant time. It is stated that vacancies in higher grades of posts in the Workmen category were to be filled up by appointing internal candidates giving them the maximum opportunity and only in the absence of suitable internal candidates, the Corporation could resort to direct recruitment. Therefore, the contention is that since the 2^nd respondent was available and qualified for appointment he should have been considered in preference to the petitioners.

¶58

It is clear that Ext.P12, which is the Promotion Policy issued in the year 2007, cannot have any application to the facts of this case since the appointment of the petitioners as well as the 2^nd respondent was made only in the year 2001. Ext. R2(a) provides for filling up vacancies in higher categories of workmen by considering internal candidates first and only in their absence, the vacancies

¶59

W.P.(C).NO.11544 OF 2011 4

¶60

can be filled up from the open market.

¶61

In the above view of the matter there is no illegality in the action of the 1^st respondent in having granted seniority to the 2^nd respondent over the petitioners, apparently on an objection preferred by him against the assigning of seniority in Ext.P6 provisional seniority list. The challenge raised against Ext.P7 seniority list and Exts P8 and P9 orders fail.

¶62

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶63

Sd/-

¶64

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶65

//True Copy\ P.A to Judge

¶66

IAP

Radhaklrishnan N. v. the Managing Director, Kerala State Tour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhaklrishnan N. v. the Managing Director, Kerala State Tour

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

K.T.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Cine Exhibitors Vs the Manager, Film Division

R. Sindhu Vs the State of Kerala

B.Radha Vs the Kerala Agricultrual University

Chenthamarakshan Vs the District Collector

Dr.Mohammed Anwar Vs Thendath Mohammed Haji and Others