Section Officers and an Assistant Legal Officer of the Law Department challenged the Tribunal's order setting aside seniority lists of Legal Assistants Grade II. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that vacancies not filled per the statutory rotation must pass over permanently to direct recruitment, and dismissed the original petitions.
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.
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 478 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 IN OA NO.1694 OF 2015 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1DEEPA KRISHNAN,
SECTION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001 (NOW WORKING
AS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).
2 JAQUILENE E.W., SECTION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 (NOW WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, OFFICIAL LANGUAGE (LEGISLATIVE) COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).3 AJITHAKUMARI V.R, SECTION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 (NOW WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER, KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM). BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR S.ANEESH AMRUTHA SANJEEVOP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:2:-
RESPONDENT/S:
1T.JAYAKUMAR,
AGED 42 YEARS
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.N.THEERDHAPADAR, RESIDING AT
KEEZHCHERI ILLAM, AMUNTHURUTHI MADAM, THEKKUMKARA,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541,SECTION
OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 A.ASOKA KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARSAGED 39 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEDEVI
VILASOM, MARUKIL, KOTTIYAKONAM, OORUTTAMBALAM
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695507, SECTION OFFICER, LAW
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695001 ON DEPUTATION IN THE KERALA ADVOCATE CLERKS
WELFARE FUND COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
3STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LAW
(ADMINISTRATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
4 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE LOWER, FOR LAW DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & SECRETARY, GAD, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.5MAYA DEVI,
SECTION OFFICER, OFFICIAL LANGUAGE (LEGISLATIVE)
COMMISSION, PATTUR, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695035
(NOW WORKING AS UNDER SECRETARY, LAW (CONVEYANCE CELL)
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
6 SALIM PARVIS, SECTION OFFICER, ON DEPUTATION IN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTES REDRESSAL CENTRE, ERNAKULAM - 682031.7T.P.RASHMY,
SECTION OFFICER, ON DEPUTATION IN KERALA STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 003. (NOW WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER, LAW
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).
8GIREESH KUMAR,
ASSISTANT LEGAL OFFICER, ON DEPUTATION IN KERALA STATE
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, PMG JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. (NOW WORKING AS SECTION
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:3:-
OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).
BY ADV ARYA UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.02.2024, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).508/2017, THE COURT ON
2/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:4:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO.508OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 IN OA NO.1383 OF 2015 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
AJITHAKUMAR V.R,
SECTION OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNEMNT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 (NOW
WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER,KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).
BY ADVS.
P.NANDAKUMAR
S.ANEESH
AMRUTHA SANJEEV
RESPONDENT/S:
1SURESH A,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ANANDAN NAIR, ASSISTANT LEGAL
OFFICER, LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ON
DEPUTATION ASDISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA
TAILORING WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, PALAYAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673001, RESIDING ATSUKUMARA SADANAM,
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:5:-
PUNUKKANNOOR, PARUMBUZHA P.O.,KOLLAM - 691504 (NOW
WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER,DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY, KOLLAM - 691001)
2STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LAW
(ADMINSITRATION) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN - 695001.
3 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE LOWER, FOR LAW DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER & SECRETARY, GAD,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.4GIREESH KUMAR G,
ASSISTANT LEGAL OFFICER,KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION,PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033(NOW
WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER,LAW DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).
BY ADVS.
HARISH GOPINATH
SANTHOSH BHASKARAN NAIR
SABAD K.H.
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 26.02.2024, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).478/2017, THE COURT ON
2/4/2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:6:-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ.
O.P.(KAT).No.508 of 2017 and O.P (KAT) No. 478/2017
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2024
J U D G M E N T
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These original petitions are filed by petitioners who are Section
Officers and Assistant Legal Officer of the Law Department
aggrieved by the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal dated
25.10.2017 in O.A. Nos.1383/2015 and 1694/2015. They were
respondents before the Tribunal. The parties are referred by their
names for easy reference.
2. The original applications were filed by the applicants who
are Section Officers and Assistant Legal Officer in the Law
Department to quash Annexures A4, A5 and A6 seniority list of Legal
Assistants/Assistant Legal Officers which are marked as Annexures
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:7:-
21, 22 and 23 in O.A.No.1694/2015. The dispute is in regard to the
fixation of seniority of the Legal Assistants following the method
of appointment prescribed in the Special Rules for the Kerala
Secretariat Subordinate Service. The Tribunal allowing the original
applications to set aside Annexures A4 A5 and A6 in
O.A.No.1694/2015, also directed the Law Department, Government of
Kerala, to revise the seniority list of the Legal Assistants Grade
II. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the respondents in the
original applications are before us in these original petitions.
3. Before perusing the facts of the case, it is pertinent to
refer to the method of appointment of Legal Assistant Grade II.
Rule 4 of Special Rules for Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service
(hereinafter referred to as the “Special Rules”) is provided below:
4. Appointment -(a) Appointment to the several categories shall
be made as follows: -
—-----------------------------------------------------------------
Categories Method of appointment
—-----------------------------------------------------------------7. Legal Assistants, Grade-II (i) Direct Recruitment OR
(ii) Appointment from Assistant
Tamil Translators and Assistant
Kannada Translators
OR
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:8:-
(iii) Appointment or promotion from
any other category in Kerala
Secretariat Subordinate Service
OR
(iv) Transfer from any category in
any Departments under the Government
or in the service of the High Court
of Kerala.
Note:1- Fifty per cent of the vacancies shall be filled up by
direct recruitment and appointment from Assistant Tamil Translators
and Assistant Kannada Translators. The other fifty per cent of the
vacancies shall be filled up by the methods specified in Items (III)
and (iv) above in the ratio of 3:2 on the advice of the Kerala Public
Service Commission under Items (iii) & (iv).
Note:2: All the employees of the departments of the Secretariat
who are qualified for appointment to this category shall be eligible
for appointment under Secretariat quota along with other categories
in the Kerala Secretariat Subordinate Service.
The following shall be the rotation by which appointments by the
different methods shall be made in a cycle of ten vacancies:-
1st vacancy: By the method specified in item (i) or (II) of the
method of appointment.
2nd Vacancy: By the method specified in item (ill) of the method
of appointment
3rd Vacancy: By the method specified in item (i) or (ii) of the
method of appointment.
4th vacancy: By the method specified in item (iii) of the method
of appointment.
5th vacancy: By the method specified in item (i) or (ii) of the
method of appointment
6th vacancy: By the method specified in item (iii) of the methodof appointmentOP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:9:-
7th vacancy: By the method specified in item (1) or (ii) of the
method of appointment
8th vacancy: By the method specified in item (iv of the method of
appointment
9th vacancy: By the method specified in item (i) or (ii) of the
method of appointment
10th vacancy: By the method specified in Item (iv) of the method
of appointment.
4. Appointment to the post of Legal Assistant Grade II is from 4
different channels, namely, 1) Direct recruitment, 2) Appointment
from Assistant Translators, 3) Appointment or transfer from
Secretariat Subordinate Service, and 4) Transfer from other
departments and High Court. The rotation for appointment from these
methods is applied in a cycle of 10 vacancies. Vacancy Nos. 1, 3,
5, 7 and 9 are filled following the direct recruitment and
appointment from the Assistant Translators. Vacancy Nos. 2, 4 and
6 are to be filled from appointment or transfer from Secretariat
Subordinate Service (for short, the “secretariat staff”). Vacancy
Nos. 8 and 10 are to be filled by transfer from other departments
and the High Court (for short, the “department staff”). Fifty
percent of the vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment
and appointment from the Assistant Tamil and Kannada Translators
and the other fifty percent of vacancies shall be filled up by
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:10:-
Secretariat staff and department staff in the ratio 3:2. In the
absence of qualified persons from the Secretariat staff, such
vacancies can be filled from department staff and vice versa. If
qualified persons are not available from both categories, such
vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment.
5. The applicants in the original applications Shri Suresh A.,
Shri T.Jayakumar and Shri A.Ashoka Kumar were appointed to the post
of Legal Assistant Grade II as per Annexure A2 rank list dated
3/4/2008 (produced in O.A.No.1694/2015), by transfer from any
department in the Government or High Court of Kerala. The party
respondents in the original applications are appointed to the above
post as per Annexure A2(a) rank list dated 3/4/2008 from the Kerala
Subordinate Secretariat Service.
6. As per Annexure A1 government order dated 3/06/2008 Smt. Deepa
Krishnan and Smt. Maya Devi K., 3rd and 4th respondents in
O.A.No.1694/2015 were appointed to the 6th vacancy in the first
cycle and 4th vacancy in the second cycle respectively. It was
submitted that vacancy Nos. 6 and 4 should have been filled by the
Secretariat staff. But due to the absence of eligible hands,
vacancies were to be filled by the department staff. Though
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:11:-
appointments were made in the 6th and 4th vacancies, candidates
did not join, creating “2 NJD vacancies.” In these NJD vacancies,
Deepa Krishnan and Maya Devi, candidates from the subordinate
secretariat quota were appointed.
7. The applicants in the original applications contended that as
per the Special Rules, in the absence of qualified persons from
both categories, such vacancies shall be filled by direct
recruitment. Therefore, Deepa Krishnan and Maya Devi could not be
appointed against the 6th and 4th vacancies and such appointments
are against the rules. In the seniority list published on
22/3/2010, the applicants-Jayakumar and Ashoka Kumar were placed
against ranks 63 and 64, whereas the ranks of Deepa Krishnan and
Maya Devi were 61 and 62. According to them,it is only because
Deepa Krishnan and Maya Devi were accommodated in the NJD
vacancies, they happened to be above the rank of Jayakumar and
Ashoka Kumar. They further argued that they are entitled to be
placed in 8th and 10th vacancies in the second cycle of rotation
and respondents 3 to 9 in O.A.No.1694/2015 can be accommodated only
in subsequent vacancies.
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:12:-
8. It was also argued that Smt.Jayasree was appointed against
the 6th vacancy in the 2nd cycle on compassionate grounds. This was
challenged by Smt. Jacqueline (5th respondent in O.A.No.1625/2015)
on the ground that dying in harness appointees can be adjusted only
against vacancies for direct recruitment. Accordingly,
accommodation was given to Jacqueline against the 6th vacancy -2nd
cycle by shifting Smt.Jayasree to the 7th vacancy.
9. The Tribunal relied on the reply statement filed by the State
wherein it is submitted thataccommodation provided to Deepa
Krishnan and Maya Devi against the 6th and 4th vacancies is on the
presumption that vacancies were only temporarily passed over to
the department staff and they are to be restored to the Secretariat
staff and accommodation of Jayasree in 6th vacancy-2nd cycle on
compassionate ground was by mistake. The Tribunal, holding that
the submission of the respondents regarding presumption as above
is erroneous but also against the express terms of the Special
Rules, ordered to quash Annexures A4, A5 and A6 seniority list in
O.A.No.1694/2015.The Tribunal further opined that the Special
Rules provided for passing over of a vacancy in the absence of
eligible hands which is a permanent passing over. The Tribunal also
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:13:-
noted thatshifting of Jaysree from the 6th vacancy to the 7th vacancy
to get the 6th vacancy open to Jacqueline is clearly illegal.
10. As per Annexure A4 government order (produced in O.A.No.1383/2015) dated 6/7/2015, final seniority list dated 1/1/2010 was modified. It is noteworthy that Sri Salim Parvis, who was initially placed in the 4th vacancy of the 3rd cycle, was reassigned to the 8th vacancy in the 2nd cycle, adhering to the 3:2 ratio rule. Consequently, T.Jayakumar, who was initially assigned to the 8th vacancy, was subsequently moved to the 10th vacancy. The T ribunal observed this alteration in the seniority list is unsupportable and concluded that such reassignment was carried out without due consideration , b lindly following the judgment in R.K.Sabarwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745].
11. The issue is centered around the implication of the rule
which defines the cycle of rotation. Deepa Krishnan and Maya Devi
belong to the category of Secretariat staff. The applicants before
the Tribunal belong to the department staff. Violation of rotation
and undue advantage taken by the Secretariat staff was considered
by the Tribunal. It is to be noted that 2 NJD vacancies in cycle
Nos. 1 and 2 arose in the year 2006. Legal assistants to these 2
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:14:-
cycles were appointed as per G.O.(Ms).No.505/06/Law, dated
06/12/2006. Appointments were made to 6th and 4th vacancies
following the method of appointment as per the Special Rules. These
2 vacancies have become vacant since 2006. Even though these 2
vacancies were passed over to the department staff, NJD vacancy
could not have been filled as the rank list of department staff
expired. These NJD vacancies remained unfilled for 2 years. Deepa
Krishnan and Maya Devi were admittedly appointed against these
unfilled 6th and 4th vacancies in the 1st and 2nd cycle in the year
2008 as per government order dated 03/06/2008. According to the
Special Rules in the absence of eligible hands from both the
categories, such vacancies should go to direct recruitment. Deepa
Krishnan and Maya Devi could have been appointed only against
subsequent vacancies. The factual events as above is not much in
dispute. We perused the rules. It is appropriate to refer to the
relevant rules in the Special Rules.
In the absence of qualified persons for appointment by the method
specified in item (III) of the method of appointment, such vacancies
shall be filled up by the method specified in item (iv) of the method
of appointment and vice versa. If qualified persons are not available
for appointment by the method specified in Items (ill) and (iv) of
the methods of appointment, such vacancies shall be filled up by
direct recruitment.
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:15:-
12. As we already noted, Deepa Krishnan and Maya Devi could
not have been appointed in 6th vacancy in 1st cycle and 4th vacancy
in 2nd cycle as NJD vacancies in the earlier rank list required to
be passed over to direct recruitment. It is vehemently contended
by the learned counsel Shri P.Nandakumar for the petitioners,
placing reliance on Shiba Shankaran Mohapatra and Others v. State
of Orissa [AIR 2010 SC 706], Rabindranath Bose and Others v. Union
of India [AIR 1970 SC 470], and Sajeeve N.J. v. Union of India and
Ors. [ILR 2009 (4) KERALA 469] that, the challenge is belated as
the applicants before the Tribunal had chosen to challenge
seniority after 5 years of publishing seniority list. The Tribunal
negated this argument. The learned counsel also placed reliance on
the earlier direction in this matter in O.A.No.184/2015 wherein
the Tribunal after hearing both sides directed the Government to
consider the matter in the light of the objection raised by
Jayakumar and Asoka Kumar, the applicants in O.A.No.184/2015. The
Tribunal in the impugned judgment found that since the petitioners
herein had not raised any objection in the earlier stage, based on
sit back theory, opined that they are precluded from reopening this
issue in the subsequent stage. It is to be noted that overturning
seniority may not have much importance as of now, except for further
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:16:-
promotion, as it is submitted at the bar that it will not affect
the promotion already effected, but the seniority matters only for
future promotions. In such a scenario according to us, sit back
theory would not apply. Further, one cannot take advantage of the
wrong committed in assigning seniority to them, adverse to the
interest of others. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with
the impugned order. Accordingly, the original petitions are
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE
ms
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:17:-
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 508/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS |
|
|---|---|
EXHIBIT P1 |
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 1383 OF |
2015 DATED 25.10.2017. |
|
EXHIBIT P2 |
TRUE COPY OF OA 1383 OF 2015. |
ANNEXURE A7 |
TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THESPECIAL RULES DATED 05.07.1967. |
ANNEXURE A6 |
TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.994/2015/LAW DATED10.07.2015. |
ANNEXURE A5 |
TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) NO.108/2015/LAW DATED06.07.2015. |
ANNEXURE A4 |
TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.966/2015/LAWDATED 06.07.2015. |
ANNEXURE A3 |
TRUE COPY OF G.O.(MS) NO.24/2015/LAW DATED30.01.2015. |
ANNEXURE A2 |
TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.GO (MS) NO.51/2010/LAWDATED 23.03.2010. |
ANNEXURE A1 |
TRUE COPY OR ORDER NO.B1-5964/14 DATED10.11.2014. |
EXHIBIT P3 |
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ONBEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
ANNEXURE R1(c) |
TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1141/2015/LAW DATED07.08.2015. |
ANNEXURE R1(b) |
TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.28562/ADMN.II(2)/2014/LAW DATED 14.05.2015. |
ANNEXURE R1(a) |
TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO,28562/ADM.II(2)/2014/LAW DATED 01.01.2015. |
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
-:18:-
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 478/2017
PETITIONEXHIBIT- |
ER EXHIBITSP1: |
TRUE COPY OF2015 DATED 25 |
THE.10 |
ORDER IN O.A.NO.1694 OF.2017. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ANNEXURE |
A27 |
TRUE COPY OF07.08.2015. |
GO |
(RT) NO.6054/2015/GAD DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A26 |
TRUE COPY OF07.08.2015. |
GO |
(RT) NO.1141/2015/LAW DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A25 |
TRUE COPY OF25.07.2015 SU |
THEBMI |
REVIEW PETITION DATEDTTED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT. |
ANNEXURE |
A24 |
TRUE COPY OF08.07.2015 SU |
THEBMI |
REVIEW PETITION DATEDTTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT. |
ANNEXURE |
A23 |
TRUE COPY OF10.07.2015. |
GO |
(RT) NO.994/2015/LAW DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A22 |
TRUE COPY OF06.07.2015. |
GO |
(MS) NO.108/2015/LAW DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A21 |
TRUE COPY OFDATED 06.07.2 |
THE015 |
GO(RT) NO.966/2015/LAW. |
ANNEXURE |
A20 |
TRUE COPY OFDATED13.05.20 |
THE15. |
JUDGMENT IN OA NO.184/2015 |
ANNEXURE |
A19 |
TRUE COPY OFPUBLISHED BY30.01.2015. |
THETHE |
FINAL SENIORITY LIST1ST RESPONDENT DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A18 |
TRUE COPY OFDATED 12.01.2 |
ORD015 |
ER NO.GO (RT) NO.56/2015/LAW. |
ANNEXURE |
A17 |
TRUE COPY OFNO.9153/2013/ |
THEGAD |
ORDER NO.GO (RT)DATED 13.11.2013. |
ANNEXURE |
A16 |
TRUE COPY OF19.12.2014. |
THE |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A15 |
TRUE COPY OFAPPLICANT DAT |
OBJED |
ECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND13.01.2015. |
ANNEXURE |
A14 |
TRUE COPY OFAPPLICANT DAT |
OBJED |
ECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST09.01.2015. |
ANNEXURE |
A13 |
TRUE COPY OF(2)/14/LAW DA |
THETED |
MEMORANDUM NO.28562/ADM.II01.01.2015. |
ANNEXURE |
A12 |
TRUE COPY OF |
THE |
HEARING NOTE. |
ANNEXURE |
A11 |
TRUE COPY OF(2)/13/LAW DA |
NOTTED |
ICE NO.28562/ADMIN II30.04.2014. |
ANNEXURE |
A10 |
TRUE COPY OF08.07.2014. |
THE |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A9 |
TRUE COPY OF25.06.2014. |
THE |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
ANNEXURE |
A8 |
TRUE COPY OF13.02.2014. |
THE |
REPRESENTATION DATED |
OP(KAT)508/2017 and OP(KAT)478/2017
| -:19:- | ||
|---|---|---|
ANNEXURE A7 |
TRUE COPY13.10.2010 |
OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED. |
ANNEXURE A6 |
TRUE COPYDATED 23.0 |
OF ORDER NO.GO (MS) NO.51/2010/LAW3.2010. |
ANNEXURE A5 |
TRUE COPYUNDER THE |
OF INFORMATION DATED 12.03.2014RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. |
ANNEXURE A4 |
TRUE COPYDATED 06.1 |
OF ORDER NO.GO (MS) NO.505/06/LAW2.2006. |
ANNEXURE A3 |
TRUE COPYDATED 05.0 |
OF SPECIAL RULES GO (P) NO.2087.1967. |
ANNEUXRE A2 (a) |
TRUE COPY(2)/06/LAW |
OF NOTIFICATION NO.16910/ADM. IIDATED 03.04.2008. |
ANNEXURE A2 |
TRUE COPY(2)/06/LAW |
OF NOTIFICATION NO.24448/ADMN.IIDATED 03.04.2008. |
ANNEXURE A1 (a) |
TRUE COPYDATED 10.0 |
OF ORDER NO.GO (MS) NO.56/08/LAW6.2008. |
ANNEXURE A1 |
TRUE COPYDATED 03.0 |
OF ORDER NO.GO (MS) NO.52/2008/LAW6.2008. |
EXHIBIT-P2: |
TRUE COPY |
OF O.A.NO.1694 OF 2015. |
EXHIBIT-P3: |
TRUE COPYBEHALF OF |
OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ONTHE 1ST RESPONDENT. |
EXHIBIT-P4: |
TRUE COPYRESPONDENT |
OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BYS 3AND 4 IN THE O.A. |
ANNEXURE R3 (a) |
TRUE COPYNOTIFICATI |
OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTEON DATED 03.04.2017. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section Officers appointed from Secretariat quota could validly be accommodated against NJD vacancies earmarked for department staff under the rotation prescribed by Rule 4 of the Special Rule
Whether the sit-back theory bars challenge to a published seniority list after five years when promotions already effected are unaffected.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.K.Sabarwal v. State of PunjabReferred¶10
(1995) 2 SCC 745 · Who else cites this
Shiba Shankaran Mohapatra and Others v. State of OrissaReferred¶12
AIR 2010 SC 706 · Who else cites this
Rabindranath Bose and Others v. Union of IndiaReferred¶12
AIR 1970 SC 470 · Who else cites this
Sajeeve N.J. v. Union of India and Ors.Referred¶12
ILR 2009 (4) KERALA 469 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepa Krishnan
Jaquiline E.W.
Ajithakumari V.R.
Ajithakumar V.R.
T.Jayakumar
A.Asoka Kumar
A.Muhamed Mustaque
Shoba Annamma Eapen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court