AJITHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This O.P. is filed for issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from reverting the petitioners to the lower post from the post they are presently holding, directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal and Ext. P5 stay petition and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P4 and P6 orders.

(2.) Petitioners 1 to 3 and the 4th respondent were selected and appointed by the 3rd respondent Bank on 14-3-1983 as per Ext. P1 resolution and Ext. P2 appointment order. According to the petitioners, a seniority list as on 1-1-1987 was prepared by the 3rd respondent and since the petitioners were ranked below the 4th respondent in the seniority list, they objected and accordingly Ext. P3 seniority list was published by the Bank as on 31-12-1989 showing the seniority of the petitioners and the 4th respondent correctly being serial Nos. 18, 19, 20 & 22 respectively. The petitioners contended that though the seniority of the petitioners and the 4th respondent was correctly shown in Ext. P3, the 4th respondent raised objections against Ext. P3 seniority list before the Joint Registrar passed Ext. P4 order in that representation on the basis of the direction of this court in the order dated 21-10-1992 in O.P.No. 13534/92 filed by the 4th respondent. Though the petitioners preferred appeal before the Government against Ext. P4 order and filed Ext. P5 stay petition, no order is passed by the Government either in the appeal or in Ext. P5 petition. In the meanwhile the petitioners were promoted to higher post basing Ext. P3 seniority list and since the petitioners feared that they will be reverted on the basis of Ext. P4 order, they have filed the above O.P. seeking direction to the Government to dispose of the appeal and Ext. P5 stay petition expeditiously and directing respondents 2 and 3 not to revert the petitioners to a lower post from the posts presently held by them.

(3.) During the pendency of the above O.P. by Ext. P6 order dated 2-2-1994 the Government found the objections raised by the petitioners against Ext. P4 order are devoid of any merits and dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the petitioners amended the O.P. by incorporating the prayer to quash Ext. P6 order.