Quashed

S.Balasubramanian v. the Director General

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017WP(C)/24613/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order regarding his non-inclusion in a promotion selection list. The Court held that the impugned order failed to verify if a candidate was in service at the time of the specific selection list publication, contrary to previous directions. The order was quashed, and respondents were directed to reconsider the issue within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order Ext.P14 quashed. Respondents directed to re-consider the promotion issue strictly in terms of Ext.P12 judgment within 3 months.

S.Balasubramanian Vs the Director General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24613 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

S.BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.C.A.SUDALIA PILLAI, HEAD CONSTABLE, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE (RPF), CHENGAL PETTU RAILWAY STATION, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.5, DOOR NO.360/4, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, CHENGAL PETTU-2.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.KALA T.GOPI SMT.T.N.SREEKALA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001

¶11

2. THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI - 600 003.

¶12

3. THE SR. DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI - 600 003.

¶13

R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM,SC,RAILWAYS SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 24613 of 2014 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

------------------ EXT.P1	--------- -	---------- A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.X/1/608/ASIPF/LDC/2000 DATED 15-11-2001, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P2	-	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 06 FEBRUARY 2005 IN O.P NO.12361/02 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.P3	-	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20 FEBRUARY 2006 IN W.A. NO.346/06 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXT.P4	-	TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM BEARING NO.X/P.608/ASIPF/2005 DATED 6-5-2006, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P5	-	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22-5-2006, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P6	-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.X/P.608/ASIPF/05 DATED 4-7-2006, ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P7	-	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEARING REF.NO.AIRPFA-SR/LDC/9/06 DATED 16-10-2006, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P8	-	A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11-10-2007, ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P9 EXT.P10	- -	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.TBM/11/2007 DATED 15-10-2007, ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR/RPF/TBM A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26-11-2007, ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P11	-	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.M/XP.608/ASIPF 40%/08 DATED 9-1-2008, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ITS ENCLOSURE
EXT.P12	-	A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.18246/08 DATED 4TH OCTOBER, 2013 RENDERED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P13	-	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.M/XP/608/SB/14 DATED 22-1-2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXT.P14	-	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.X/P WP 18246/08 DATED 17-1-2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
RESPONDEN	T(S)' E	XHIBITS
------------------ EXT.R3(A)	--------- -	------------- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO:12168/2007DATED 20.10.2011
EXT.R3(B)	-	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BOARD SHEET PERTAINING TO THE RECOMMENDATION WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶23

============================== W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2014

¶24

============================== Dated this, the 02^nd day of March, 2017.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The petitioner wanted promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Protection Force (ASIPF),

¶27

under the selection quota available as per the applicable rules. He applied for the selection and according to him, he was qualified as the 15^th person in the rank. However, there were only 14 vacancies. Therefore, the selection list that is published, namely, Ext.P4 contained only 14 names and since the petitioner was the 15^th in rank, he was not so included. In normal circumstances, there should not have been any controversy, because, the petitioner being 15 in rank could not have found a place in Ext.P4 since that related only to the 14 available vacancies. However, the petitioner pointed out that the first person in Ext.P4 select list, namely, a certain Mr.K.Kasturiranganathan was not in service at the time when the rank list was published and that his name ought

¶28

W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2014 : 2 :

¶29

to be deleted from the list so as to facilitate the petitioner's inclusion as the 14^th person therein. When this was not considered, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained Ext.P12 judgment. This Court, as is clear from the judgment, directed the respondents to specifically consider if Mr.K.Kasturiranganathan was in service at the time when the selection was made and if not, to exclude his name and to include the name of the petitioner with a further direction that in such event, the petitioner be given notional promotion with effect from the date on which the last person in Ext.P4 was absorbed in the category of Assistant Sub Inspector.

¶30

The respondents, in purported obedience of the directions contained in Ext.P12, issued orders dated 17.01.2014, a copy of which has been appended to this writ petition as Ext.P14. The petitioner says that this order, though stated to be an obedience to the directions, does not consider the most relevant aspect that is if Mr.K. Kasturiranganathan was in service in the relevant year, namely, in 2006. He has therefore, impugned this order

¶31

W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2014 : 3 :

¶32

as being issued without proper application of mind and

¶33

therefore, being illegal and unlawful.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner Shri.T.C.Govindaswamy and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶36

I have examined Ext.P14 which is the order impugned in the writ petition. Even though in Ext.P12 judgment, this Court had specifically directed that the respondents verify if Shri.K.Kasturiranganathan had already left the service of the Railways long ago and that if he should, therefore, be excluded from the selection list, namely, Ext.P4, I do not see that any such consideration has been recorded in Ext.P14. All that is stated in Ext.P14 is that Shri.K.Kasturiranganathan was in service during 2001. Nothing else. What they were obligated by the terms of Ext.P12 judgment to do was to verify if Shri. K.Kasturiranganathan was in service at the time when Ext.P4 was issued, which alone could have enabled him to obtain inclusion in the rank list for promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector. This obviously not

¶37

W.P.(C)No.24613 of 2014 : 4 :

¶38

having been done in Ext.P14, it cannot stand the scrutiny of law and therefore, deserves to be set aside.

¶39

In such circumstances, I quash Ext.P14 order and direct the respondents immediately re-consider the issue strictly in terms and within the confines of the directions contained Ext.P12 judgment, as expeditiously as possible and not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All the directions in Ext.P12 judgment continue to hold the field and the respondents are obligated to act under such and to pass consequential orders after re-consideration of the issue, as has been ordered herein.

¶40

This writ petition is ordered as above. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶43

Bb/13/03/2017

¶44

[True copy] P.A to Judge

S.Balasubramanian v. the Director General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Balasubramanian v. the Director General

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

Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayath Vs M.a.Jose

K.Geetha Vs State of Kerala

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Anr.

Beena Joseph Vs State Bank of India and Others

M.C.Pappan and Another Vs Secretary, Mundakayam Grama Panchayath

Teeson Treads Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala