Dismissed

Libin.C.v v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/4707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the Corporation's seniority list relying on retrospective promotions based on probation declaration. The Court held that statutory rules allowing retrospective promotion without change of duties determine seniority date, rejecting the petitioner's claim for joining date.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking to quash the provisional and final seniority lists was dismissed.

Libin.C.v Vs Kerala State Beverages… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4707 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 LIBIN.C.V AGED 38 YEARS S/O. C.V.VARKEY, ASST GRADE I ( SENIOR ASST), FL 15030, ERATTUPETTA, CHENGAZHASSERRIL, THEEKOY P.O.,-686 580

¶8

2 SHAHANAZ.H.R., AGED 36 YEARS ASST GRADE I ( SENIOR ASST), FI 9 WAREHOUSE, KOTTARAKKARA KSBC, RESIDING AT LEKHA MANZIL, NJARACKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601

¶9

3 AJAYAN.A. S/O. ANTONY L., SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST. GRADE 1), DISTRICT AUDIT TEAM, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT THE NEST, KOIVILA P.O., KOLLAM ,PIN-6981 590 4 JAYADEV J.P., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. JAYAKUMAR.S., SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST. GRADE 1), HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, RESIDING AT FEMITHAM, PLRA-41, PULIMOODU LANE, VATTIYOOR KAVU ,PIN-695 013 5 PRASANTH.S., AGED 37 YEARS S/O. SASI.S., SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST.GRADE I), HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION, RESIDING AT PRASANTH BHAVAN, SANTHUMOOLA MALAYINKIL P.O., -695 571 6 SUDHEENDRA.M., SENIOR ASSISTANT 9ASST.GRADE 1) FL 1 4012 CHUNGAM, RESIDING AT VELIMPARAMP-PUTHENVEEDU, THONDANKULANGARA, AVALUKUNNU P.O, ALAPPUZHA-688 006 7 RAKESH.R., AGED 38 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST. GRADE 1) KSBC FL 9 WAREHOUSE,KOTTARAKKARA, RESIDING AT PALAZHI, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANADU P.O., KOLLAM,PIN691 003 8 AHAMMED BABU.P.M., AGED 42 YEARS

¶10

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶11

-2-

¶12

S/O. MUHAMEMD ABDUL RAHMAN, SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST.GRADE 1) FL 9 WAREHOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR, PANANGAD HOUSE, MANAPPADAM P.O., (NEAR PETROL PUMP) PUTHUCODE, PIN-678 687 9 LIJIL M., AGED 42 YEARS S/O. MANOHARAN .K., SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST. GRADE 1) FL 1 7017, PALARIVATTOM P.O., RESIDING AT KIZHAKKE KALLUMALA, KAVUNKAL, MANNANCHERY P.O.,PIN-688 538 10 KIRAN .T.R. AGED 38 YEARS S/O. D.K.RAVEENDRANPILLAI, SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST. GRADE 1) FL 1 3017 ERAVIPEROOR, RESIDING AT THEKKATHIL VEDU, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM,PIN691 576 11 MOHAMMED ILYAS A.K. AGED 38 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED A, SENIOR ASSISTANT (ASST.GRADE 1) FL 9 WAREHOUSE PERINTHALMANNA, RESIDING AT ATHIKKADAN HOUSE, IRAINGATTIRI P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU-676 523 BY ADVS. C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) M.R.SUDHEENDRAN ANANDA PADMANABHAN UTHARA A.S MAHESH CHANDRAN VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BAHVAN, P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶15

2 MANAGING DIRCTOR, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD.,BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BAHVAN, P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶16

3 THE GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND

¶17

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶18

-3-

¶19

MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD.,BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BAHVAN, P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 033

¶20

4 ADDL.R4.BIJU.B AGED 41 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION FL 01.4001 AROOR WARE HOUSE, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT THEKKEPULIKKAL HOUSE, MANAPPURAM.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA688526. 5 ADDL.R5.RINCHU.C ANTONY SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED, RM OFFICE, CHAVITTUVARI, KOTTAYAM-686006 RESIDING AT CHUNDEVELI HOUSE, PANAVALLY.P.O., CHERTHALA-688526. 6 ADDL.R6.HARIMON.K.S SENIOR ASSISTANT, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES(MANUFACTURING & MARKETING) CORPORATION LIMITED, RM OFFICE, CHAVITTUVARI, KOTTAYAM-686006, RESIDING AT AMBADY HOUSE, K.R.PURAM.P.O., FCHERTHALA-688556. ( ADDL. R4 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16-2-2022 IN IA 1/2022) BY ADVS. K.JAJU BABU (SR.) M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI BRIJESH MOHAN T.S.ATHIRA

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SC FOR BEVCO T. NAVEEN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HARD ON 02.06.2022, THE COURT ON 15.06.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶25

-4-

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2022

¶28

The petitioners entered the service of the first respondent Corporation as Assistants GradeII on 1.12.2013. In the final seniority list of Assistant Grade II dated 03.01.2014 (Ext.P1), the petitioners are placed at serial Nos.163, 179, 149, 207, 203, 185, 211, 156, 146, 170 and 166 respectively. By the time Ext.P1 was issued, the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Grade I (re-designated as Senior Assistant). While matters stood thus, the first respondent published Ext.P2 provisional seniority list of Senior Assistants. The seniority in Ext.P2 was fixed, reckoning the date of declaration of

¶29

probation in the category of Assistant Grade II as the promotion date. This resulted in the petitioners being placed below persons like the

¶30

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶31

-5-

¶32

party respondents with lesser service. Hence, petitioners and other aggrieved persons filed objections against the provisional seniority list. After considering the objections, first respondent issued Ext.P4 provisional seniority list. This time the seniority was fixed based on the date of joining duty in the entry cadre. Aggrieved by Ext.P4, some of the employees filed W.P.(C) No.22659 of 2021 and obtained a direction to the first respondent to consider their objections against Ext.P4 provisional seniority list. Thereupon, the first respondent heard the both parties and issued Ext.P5 holding that, as per the Service Rules of the Corporation (Special Rules), the date of declaration of probation is the relevant date for promotion from the entry cadre post to the post of

¶33

Assistant Grade I. Accordingly, Ext.P2 provisional rank list was held to be proper, being in tune with Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR and Rule

¶34

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶35

-6-

¶36

35 of the Special Rules. Thereafter, Ext.P7 internal memo was issued, publishing Ext.P2 provisional list as the final seniority list. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2, P5 and P7 and to declare Ext.P4 as the correct seniority list to be finalised. The alternative prayer is to direct the respondents to prepare yet another seniority list in accordance with law, before effecting promotions to the cadre of Assistant Manager.

¶37

Adv.C.Unnikrishnan learned counsel for

¶38

the petitioners, contended that the impugned orders are patently illegal, inasmuch as they are issued in violation of the fundamental principle that promotions are to be effected based on seniority reckoned on the basis of the date of joining the entry post. It is submitted that Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR and Rule 35 of the Special Rules referred in Ext.P5 does not provide for promotions based on the date of declaration of

¶39

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶40

-7-

¶41

probation. Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR merely prescribes successful completion of probation as eligibility for promotion and is not the decisive factor for

¶42

fixing seniority. Likewise, Rule 35 of the Special Rules prescribes only the manner of fixing the seniority of an employee appointed by promotion. Moreover, it is categorically stated in Rule 35 that, date of order of promotion will

¶43

be the criteria for fixing seniority in the promoted post. A combined reading of the above Rules indicates that seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant should be fixed based on the date of order of promotion and not the date of declaration of probation in the entry cadre. In support of the contention, reference is made to Rule 27(a) of the KS&SSR, as per which seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶45

-8-

¶46

Senior Advocate K.Jaju Babu appearing

¶47

for the party respondents made the following submissions;

¶48

The respondents were appointed as Assistant Grade II vide Ext.R4(a) order dated 27.02.2012. On completion of induction training, they were given postings as per Ext.R4(b) dated 03.03.2012. Later, probation of the party

¶49

respondents in the category of Assistant Grade II was declared with effect from 27.02.2013, as per Ext.R4(c) order dated 05.11.2013. Thereafter, by Ext.R4(d) dated 16.01.2014, they were promoted to the category of Assistant Grade I (Senior Assistant) with effect from 05.03.2013. Even though probation of the petitioners were also declared as per Ext.R4(d), their probation was given effect from subsequent dates. Rule 28(a) of the KS&SSR specifically stipulates satisfactory completion of probation as the eligibility for promotion. Moreover, Rule 35 of the Special Rules

¶50

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶51

-9-

¶52

clearly states that seniority will be determined based on the date of order of promotion. The petitioners never challenged the promotions granted under Ext.R4(d) treating the petitioners to be junior to the party respondents. As such, challenge against the subsequent orders, issued on the basis of Ext.R4(d) is unsustainable. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the decisions

¶53

in Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala [1986 KLT 817], T.R.Kapoor and others v State of Haryana

¶54

and others [1989 (4) SCC 71] and Varghese and others v. State of Kerala and others [1981 KLT

¶55

458] .

¶56

Adv.T.Naveen, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Corporation, submitted that the Service Rules applicable to the Government servants are made applicable to the employees of the Corporation, as per Rule 8(1) of the Special Rules. As per Rule 35, seniority

¶57

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶58

-10-

¶59

of a person appointed by promotion is to be

¶60

determined by the date of order of promotion. The contention that the date of declaration of probation is taken as the eligibility for promotion from the entry cadre to the post of

¶61

Assistant Grade I is not correct. A perusal of Ext.P5 would clearly show that the date of promotion in the category of Assistant Grade I is taken as the criteria for preparing the seniority list. As per Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR, promotions which do not involve change of duties shall have effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy. There is no change of duty involved in the promotion of an Assistant Grade II as Assistant

¶62

Grade I. Hence, the promotion of the party respondents was rightly given retrospective effect from the date of declaration of probation in the vacancies to which they were promoted.

¶63

Reliance is placed on the decision in Vipin S and

¶64

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶65

-11-

¶66

others v State of Kerala and others [2019 (3) KHC

¶67

909] to contend that, after considering Rules 8 and 35 of the Special Rules, Rule 27(a) of KS&SSR and Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR, this Court has held that, when there is a statutory Rule which provides for retrospective effect to promotion, seniority shall be determined in tune with that Rule. Reference is made to Exts.R1(a) to R1(l) orders by which the eligible employees in the category of Assistant Grade II were promoted as Assistant Grade I with retrospective effect. It is contended that the challenge against Exts.P2, P5 and P7, without challenging Exts.R1(a) to R1(l), based on which the subsequent orders were issued, can only be rejected.

¶68

In reply, Adv.C.Unnikrishnan submitted

¶69

that the petitioners had no complaint against Ext.R1(a) to R1(l) and their grievance arose only on the issuance of Ext.P2, followed by Exts.P5

¶70

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶71

-12-

¶72

and P7, fixing inter se seniority in the category

¶73

of Assistant Grade I based on the retrospective declaration of probation and consequential promotion. It is contended that Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR has no application to the issue at hand, since the Rule is with respect to drawing of pay and allowances to the tenure of a post and has nothing to do with seniority and regular promotion.

¶74

In the nature of the contentions raised,

¶75

Rules 8 and 35 of the Special Rules, Rule 27 (a) and Rule 28 (a) of KS&SSR and Rule 23(d) Part I KSR assumes relevance. The above Rules are extracted hereunder for easy reference;

¶76

“ Rule 8 of Special Rules : Matters relating to services not covered by the Rules:

¶77

1. In respect of matters not covered in these Rules, similar rules in Government services shall be followed.

¶78

Rule 35 of Special Rules :

¶79

promotion:

¶80

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶81

-13-

¶82

Seniority of a person appointed by promotion will be determined by the date of order of promotion, provided the promote joins the higher post within admissible joining time. Otherwise, his/her seniority will be reckoned with effect from the date of joining duty only provided that the Board may, in cases when due to reasons beyond control an employee could not join the duty in time, relax and assign seniority to the employee as though he/she joined duty in the post in time.

¶83

Rule 27 (a) of KS&SSR

¶84

27. Seniority.-(a) Seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as punishment, be determined by the date of the order of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade.

¶85

Rule 28 (a) of KS&SSR

¶86

Rule 28. (a) Promotion.-(i) Except in the case of appointment to the posts of Heads of Department no member of a service or class of a service shall be eligible for promotion from the category in which he was appointed to the service unless he has satisfactorily completed his probation in that category:

¶87

Provided that a probationer in a class, category or grade shall not be superseded for promotion to a higher class, category or grade

¶88

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶89

-14-

¶90

by his junior, if the vacancy in the higher class, category or grade arises within the period specified in the Special Rules for completion of probation in the class, category or grade in which he is probationer and if he has passed the test or tests prescribed for successful completion of probation and is otherwise eligible and suitable for such promotion; but his promotion shall be subject to the condition that he satisfactorily completes the probation in the class, category or grade from which he was promoted within the period prescribed thereof, and for this purpose the period of service put in by him in the higher class, category or grade shall be reckoned towards probation in the class, category or grade from which he was promoted and also in the class, category or grade to which he was promoted:

¶91

Provided further that if a probationer promoted in pursuance of the above proviso fails to complete his probation in the class, category or grade from which he was promoted within the period prescribed thereof, his probation in the higher class, category or grade shall be terminated and he shall be reverted to the class, category or grade from which he was promoted, and any subsequent promotion of such person to the higher class, category or grade shall not also entitle such

¶92

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶93

-15-

¶94

person to claim seniority in the higher class, category or grade by reason only of his previous promotion in pursuance of the preceding proviso and he shall commence probation afresh in that class, category or grade from the date of such subsequent promotion.

¶95

(ii) Where the Special Rules for a service provide for appointment by promotion to any class or category from a specified class or category of such service, no member shall be eligible for such appointment unless he is a full member or an approved probationer in the class or category so specified: Provided that if he is the holder of a post in any service for which no probation has been prescribed, he shall not be eligible for promotion unless he has put in satisfactory service in that post for a period of one year on duty within a continuous period of two years.

¶96

(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules or in the Special Rules/Executive Orders, the period of probation for persons appointed by direct recruitment or recruitment by transfer through Public Service Commission shall be two years on duty within a continuous period of three years and for persons appointed in a post or category from another post or category in the

¶97

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶98

-16-

¶99

same service or appointed by transfer from one service to another within the same Department or in another Department (where direct recruitment is not resorted to) shall be one year on duty within a continuous period of two years.

¶100

Provided that the period of probation for persons who were appointed on or after the 1st April, 2010 to selection posts in the State Services, by promotion or by transfer within the Department where direct recruitment is not one of the methods of appointments as per the Special rules, shall be six months on duty within a continuous period of one year.

¶101

Rule 23 (d) Part I KSR

¶102

“(d) Promotions which do not involve change of duties shall have effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy, or the date of acquiring eligibility for promotions, whichever is later, but monetary benefit shall be admissible only for a maximum period of one year prior to the date of order of promotion.”

¶103

seniority and 28(a), with promotions. Under Rule 27(a), seniority is to be determined based on the date of joining the entry post. As far as promotions are concerned, Rule 28(a) stipulates

¶104

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶105

-17-

¶106

that no member of the service or class of service

¶107

shall be eligible for promotion unless he has satisfactorily completed the period of probation. A conjoint reading of the above rules would show that even though seniority is determined based on the date of joining service, the right for promotion is depended on satisfactory completion of probation. In the instant case, probation of the party respondents was declared prior to that of the petitioners, although the petitioners had joined the entry cadre earlier. The impact of Rule 28(a) of KS&SSR was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ravindranath v. Calicut

¶108

University [1977 Lab.IC 1127] . The contextually relevant portion of the judgment reads as under;

¶109

“4. …..In view of Rule 28(a)(i) and (ii) and the proviso which we have already read on the dates on which the juniors completed their period of probation they could have been promoted and the seniors who had not completed their probation then would not have been entitled to be promoted. If on that day an

¶110

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶111

-18-

¶112

order had been passed promoting the juniors who had completed their probation we do not think the seniors, who had not completed their probation, would have been entitled to object by stating that they being seniors the appointing authority ought to have waited till the seniors satisfactorily completed their probation before passing orders promoting persons from the category. This principle, we think, must apply also to cases where a block of vacancies had existed before any in the eligible category had completed their period of probation. As and when the members of the eligible category satisfactorily completed their probation they could have been promoted giving them the dates on which they satisfactorily completed their probation, as the dates on which they would commence service in the promotion category. If the seniors in the eligible category completed their probation later on they could also have been promoted in a similar manner but they cannot be given a date anterior to the dates on which they completed their period of probation satisfactorily because they could not have been appointed to the promotion post on any earlier date. If this is the true principle the fact that by a combined order promotions were made and that order was passed after all the pro-motees had completed their period of

¶113

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶114

-19-

¶115

probation will not by themselves invalidate the order fixing seniority in the promotion grade from the dates on which each promotee completed his probation in the eligible category.”

¶116

Later, the Full Bench in Varghese (supra) , agreed

¶117

with the decision in Ravindranath and held as follows;

¶118

“6. ….We agree with the view expressed therein that it would make no difference whether the vacancies already exist or the vacancies occur after the juniors become qualified. If there is vacancy as and when a person becomes qualified for being promoted to such vacancy he would be entitled to be considered for promotion in that vacancy. If there is no vacancy when a person becomes qualified for promotion and a vacancy arises while he remains qualified, as and when such vacancy arises his case for promotion calls for consideration.”

¶119

In the light of the above settled legal position,

¶120

the contention that, declaration of probation only determines eligibility for promotion and, under all circumstances, seniority has to be

¶121

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶122

-20-

¶123

reckoned based on the date of joining the entry cadre, cannot be countenanced.

¶124

Rule 23(a) of Part I KSR makes provision for an officer to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post. Rule 23(d) further provides that, promotions which do not involve change of duty shall have effect from the date of occurrence of vacancy or date of acquiring the eligibility for promotion, whichever is later. As per Rule 35 of the Special Rules, seniority is to be determined by the date of order of promotion. The impact of Rules 8 and 35 of the Special Rules qua Rule 23(d) of Part I

¶125

KSR was considered by this Court in Vipin S (supra) and answered as under;

¶126

“33. Therefore as rightly contended by Sri.Varun C.Vijay, the rules relating to seniority in the present case have to be construed in such a manner so as to yield more reasonable and fair results. A literal

¶127

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶128

-21-

¶129

or strict construction of Rule 27(a) read with rule 8 or even Rule 35 discarding the provisions contained in Rule 23(d) would bring about anomalous and unintended results defeating the very object of that rule. At the same time on a harmonious and contextual interpretation of the provisions contained in Rules relating to seniority, the recruitment rules to the post of Assistant Grade II along with Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR, can avoid such unintended results.

¶130

34. Going by Rule 23(d) it can be seen that the promotion of party respondents are in accordance with Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR. Therefore in such cases denial of seniority from the date of effect of promotion is not envisaged. Their seniority is liable to be fixed with reference to Rule 23(d) also, with effect from the date from which they were granted promotion. On Promotion from the post of Assistant Grade II to Assistant Grade I there is no change in duties; there is no separate process of joining, unless there is a transfer. Direct recruitment of Computer Programmer cum Operators were made at a time when the party respondents had completed their probation period and lethargy of the Corporation delayed their declaration of

¶131

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶132

-22-

¶133

probation and promotions. If the promotions are made in normal circumstances, seniority is to be determined with reference to the date of order of promotion. Retrospective promotions were granted in this case in rectification of the mistakes and in recognition of the eligibility of the employees for promotion, in accordance with the recruitment rules.

¶134

35. Therefore even though the normal rule for determining seniority is Rule 35 of the service rules which is more or less similar to rule 27(a) of KS&SSR, by Rule 8, provisions in Rule 23(d) of KSR is also liable to be considered, in cases where there is no change of duty and promotion itself is on the basis of seniority as per the recruitment rules and when there is a ratio of 1:1. Rule 23(d) will apply in the case of the party respondents according to which the promotion itself takes effect from the date on which they became eligible. When there is a statutory rule which provides for retrospective effect for promotion, their seniority shall be determined in tune with that Rule 23(d), which has to be read with Rule 8 or 35, as the case may be, of the service rules.”

¶135

I am in respectful agreement with the above

¶136

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶137

findings. The challenge against the promotions granted in accordance with Rule 23(d) of Part I KSR r/w Rule 35 of the Special Rules is therefore rejected. I also find merit in the contention that, seniority having been fixed based on the promotions granted under Exts.R1(a) to R1(l) and those orders not being under challenge, the relief sought in this writ petition, of setting aside Exts.P2, P5 and P7, cannot be granted.

¶138

For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶143

-24-

¶144

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶145

-25-

¶146

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4707/2022

¶147

PETITIO Exhibit	NER EXHIB P1	ITS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.AE11/9655/KSBC /2013 CONTAINING THE FINALIZED SENIORITY LIST OF EMPLOYEES IN THE CADRE OF ASST GRADE II (ENTRY CADRE IN KSBC DATED 03.01.2014
Exhibit	P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL MEMO NO.11048/AE11/2021 /KSBC CONTAINING THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF SENIOR ASSISTANTS DATED 18.08.2021
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER NO.2 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.08.2021
Exhibit	P3A	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY PETITIONER NO.7 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.08.2021
Exhibit	P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL MEMO NO.11048/AN4/2021/KSBC CONTAINING THE 2ND PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF SENIOR ASSISTANTS DATED 4.10.2021
Exhibit	P5	A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.11048/AE- 11/KSBC DATED 27.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DECIDING TO FINALISE EXT P2 SENIORITY LIST
Exhibit	P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SPECIAL RULES
Exhibit	P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERNAL MEMO N.11048/AN4/2021/KSBC DATED 28.01.2022 CONTAINING THE FINALIZED SENIORITY LIST
RESPOND	ENT EXHIB	ITS
Exhibit	R4(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AE1- 25704/2011 KSBC DATED 27.2.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	R4(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AE1- 1043/2012 KSBC DATED 3.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	R4(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AE11/30160/2013 KSBC DATED 5.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶148

W.P.(C) No.4707 of 2022

¶149

-26-

¶150

Exhibit R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. AE11/16986/2013/ KSBC DATED 16.1.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit R4(E) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2021 IN W.P.(C) 22659/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Libin.C.v v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Libin.C.v v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omanakuttan M.S Vs Cochin Co-Operative Hospital Society Limited No E 288

A. Kishore Vs State of Kerala

Suresh P.K Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Sreejithlal S.K Vs Chief Engineer (Roads) Public Works Department

Seru Vs District Collector

The Badagara Educational Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the Principal Secretary