RAJENDRAN, K. P. Vs. KUBERAN NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER rule 27(a)of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,the seniority of a person first appointed temporarily and then in accordance with the rules(in other words,regularly)is determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts for probation.Under rule 18(a ),or rule 31(a)as the case may be,it is for the appointing authority to determine the date on which the person is to be regarded as having commenced probation,the date of regularisation as it is called in service parlance.That being so, prima facie it seems to us that the seniority of the writ petitioner and respondents 3 and 4,in the category of Dairy Extension Officer,a post to which they were first appointed temporarily,and then regularly after selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee,is determined by Ext.P -4,dated 30th July 1966 the order made by the appointing authority determining the of regularisation in respect each of them,however that might be,all this is hardly relevant to the matter in issue here,namely,the reversion of the petitioner,by the impugned order Ext.P -6,dated,7th August 1968,from the higher post of Assistant Director to which he(as also respondents 3 and 4)had been temporarily promoted.There is really no question of seniority in a category as between persons appointed temporarily thereto,for,they are not really members of the category.The termination of their temporary appointment is dictated solely by considerations of administrative expediency and in no wise depends on their relative seniority in a lower grade.And,if it is his seniority in the lower grade of Dairy Extension Officer that is agitating the petitioner(and,therefore the appellant 3rd respondent)it will be time enough for him to complain if that is fixed to his detriment "we are told that it has not yet been fixed "and he can then,if neces­sary,canvass the correctness of Ext.P -4,some­thing which,we might add,he has not so far done.The petitioner,it seems to us,had no right to complain,as he did,against his reversion to the post of Dairy Extension Officer ordered by Ext.P -6 on the score that respondents 3 and 4 were continuing as temporary Assistant Directors,even if they were junior to him as Dairy Extension Officers.But then,by the same token,neither had the 3rd respondent any right to come up with this appeal complaining against the order of the learned Single Judge quashing Ext.P -6,even if it be that he was temporarily promoted as,Assistant Director before the petitioner.If anybody had a right to complain it was the department but the department has not chosen to complain.And both sides have fought this misconceived battle regarding the petitioner's reversion in the mistaken belief that the reversion had a bearing on their relative seniority whereas in truth it had none.

(2.) AS we have already said,the relative seniority of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Dairy Extension Officer is irrelevant for the present purpose.Therefore we set aside the finding of the learned Single Judge with regard to that,but otherwise dismiss this appeal.We make no order as to costs.