C E SANTHAKUMARI; M G RAJASHREE; T S JAYAPRAKASH; LEELAMMA AUGUSTINE; SUMAYYA HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA; COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY; T A HUSSAIN KUTTY; V MOHANAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the appellants. They challenge the order vacating the interim stay granted in their favour. The appellants were employees of the Revenue Department before they joined the Rural Development Department. There was some dispute as to whether the change in seniority in the Revenue Department should be carried to the Rural Development Department also. This Court, by Annexure R2(a) judgment, produced in the Writ Petition, declared that any change in the seniority in the Revenue Department as a result of amendment of the Special Rules governing appointment to the posts in that Department will not have any effect on the seniority position of the employees in the Rural Development Department. The matter was carried in appeal. During the pendency of the Writ Appeal there was an interim order and on the strength of it, the existing seniority list was followed for promotion. Based on the seniority position in that list, Exts.P7 and P7(a) lists prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee were also published. Persons named therein, including the appellants herein were promoted, subject to the result of the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal was finally dismissed by Ext.R2(b) judgment dated 14.1.2009. In implementation of Annexure R2(a) judgment, which was affirmed in Annexure R2 (b) judgment, revised seniority list Annexure R2(d) was published. Relying on Annexure R2(d), a fresh DPC list was published in the official gazette dated 14.10.2009. Now, based on that, persons included in that list are promoted. As a result, the appellants will be facing reversion. Since the learned Single Judge vacated the stay already granted, now they will be reverted. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar submitted that the appellants are continuing in their promoted post since 2008. They are entitled to sit back. The learned senior counsel also submitted that during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, the earlier list was operated and they were promoted. The said fact was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench at the time of dismissal of the appeal. The select list was also not challenged.

(3.) If we say something on the merits of the points canvassed by the learned senior counsel, the same will affect one side or the other. But, having regard to the principles of balance of convenience, prima facie, we are of the view that the persons now promoted should be allowed to continue in the promotion post in preference to the appellants. Further, what is challenged is only an interim order. Therefore, unless that order is shown to be plainly arbitrary or perverse, the appellate court is not supposed to interfere with the same.