N ALAVI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly by the petitioners, as submitted before me, they were appointed during 1970s, earliest among them was appointed in the year 1972. The appointment was in the category of Lower Division Clerks. The seniority shall be governed in terms of rule 27 (c) of the K.S. & S.S. Rules with reference to their date of effective advice. According to them, they were promoted as Upper Division Clerks as per Ext. P7 assigning them different dates. Admittedly, they had acquired the necessary obligatory test qualification for appointment to the post of U.D. Clerks during the period 1986-89, it is so submitted before me. It is only after such acquisition of qualification, they were promoted as per Ext. P2. It is further submitted before me that their erstwhile juniors in the category of L.D. Clerks had been promoted earlier than them as U.D. Clerks, because of earlier acquisition of test qualification, 'depending on occurrence of vacancies'. Admittedly by the petitioners, as submitted before me, they were appointed during 1970s, earliest among them was appointed in the year 1972. The appointment was in the category of Lower Division Clerks. The seniority shall be governed in terms of rule 27 (c) of the K.S. & S.S. Rules with reference to their date of effective advice. According to them, they were promoted as Upper Division Clerks as per Ext. P7 assigning them different dates. Admittedly, they had acquired the necessary obligatory test qualification for appointment to the post of U.D. Clerks during the period 1986-89, it is so submitted before me. It is only after such acquisition of qualification, they were promoted as per Ext. P2. It is further submitted before me that their erstwhile juniors in the category of L.D. Clerks had been promoted earlier than them as U.D. Clerks, because of earlier acquisition of test qualification, 'depending on occurrence of vacancies'.

(2.) Petitioners have now approached this court challenging Ext. P6 seniority list and seeking for a direction that they are entitled to restore their seniority in the U.D.C. Cadre and above on the basis of their date of entry in the post of Lower Division Clerks as evidenced by Ext. P2 and for all consequential service benefits. The petitioners therefore seek a direction to restore this seniority in the post of U.D. Clerks on the basis of their entry in the cadre of lower division clerks as evidenced by Ext. P2. In other words, the petitioners seek restoration of their original seniority in the post of Lower Division Clerks, even in the category of Upper Division Clerks over their erstwhile juniors in the category of Lower Division Clerks who had been promoted earlier than the petitioners to U.D. Cadre based on their qualifications and depending on occurrence of vacancies. The seniority settled as per Ext. P6 list shall be revised. According to me those prayers cannot be granted for different reasons mentioned below.

(3.) First of all Ext. P6 is a seniority list. That seniority list was issued by the Director of Public Instructions as early on 14-6-1996. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge that list for the last more than five years. Now at this distance of time, the petitioners cannot seek to challenge the seniority list issued more than five years ago.