A. DAVOOD KHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions arise out of the same facts;and they seek the same reliefs.Hence they have been heard jointly,and are being disposed of by this common judgment.The documents produced in both the cases are more or less the same;and I shall be referring in this judgment to the exhibits in O.P.3607 of 1969.

(2.) THE Transport Department of Travancore Cochin recruited a large number of conductors in 1952,on the advice of the Public Service Commission.The petitioners in these cases,and respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.No.3997 of 1969 were included in the advice list of the Commission.Respondent No.4 in both cases is the same.Pursuant to the advice,the petitioners were appointed,but the said respondents were refused appointment,though they had higher ranks than the petitioner,in view of adverse police reports about them.However,these respondents were again advised for appointment by the Commission a few years later,and they were appointed on the basis of the said advices.Respondents 1 and 2 were appointed in 1958,while the third respondent was appointed in 1960 and the fourth respondent was appointed in 1956.

(3.) ON 22 -8 -1968,the Governor of Kerala in exercise of his powers under Rule 39 of the Kerala Service Rules issued a Notification,G.O.Ms.No.283/68/Home,copy of which is marked as Ext.R -2,making the following orders in relaxation of the existing rules: (1)The candidates who have been appointed to the Public Service on cancellation of the department orders,will be given rank and seniority in the category to which they are advised,as on the date of their original advice or selection.They will also be given rank and seniority in any higher non -selection posts to which they would have been promoted had they been appointed as per the original advice,after satisfactory completion of probation in the category to which they were originally advised/selected and given notional increments in such higher cadre,subject to the above condition. ( 2)The period between the date of original advice and the date of actual appointment of such candidates will be counted as duty under Rule 12(7 ),Part I,K.S.R.for purposes of increment and pension but not for leave.The period will be counted as duty for increment in the higher grade also in case where these individuals would have got promoted to the higher non -selection post on a date prior to the actual appointment,but only after satisfactory completion of probation in the category to which they are originally advised/selected.In either cases,arrears of pay will not be given. (3)Similarly,they will also have to qualify in the tests prescribed for the post,but will be given two years 'time for acquiring test qualifications.This will be in relaxation of general Rule 13 -A of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules.But if their turn for promotion arises during this period their cases will be considered for promotion even if they may not have passed the tests. The Corporation decided to extend the benefits of Ext.R -2 to its employees.Ext.P -3,dated 26 6 -1969,is a memorandum issued by its General Manager informing all its officers of the said decision.Ext.P -3 reads: In pursuance of the decision of the Corporation,all officers and sections in chief office are informed,that all the service benefits admissible under the Government Order,M.S.No.283/68/Home,dated 22 -8 -68,are extended to those persons who were denied appointment in the former State Transport Department on adverse report of police verification and who were later given appointment after reviewing the original orders prior to 1960,subject to the condition,that they shall not be eligible for any back arrears of pay and allowances. Accordingly,the seniority of all conductors in the Corporation was refixed with the result that respondents 1 to 4 in O.P.No.3997 who were below the petitioners as per seniority list prepared as on 1 -4 -1965,were assigned much higher ranks than the petitioners.Ext.P -4,dated 18 -7 -1969,is the order of the General Manager refixing seniority of the said respondents.These writ petitions have been filed to quash Ext.P -4 and to restrain,the Corporation from taking any steps to implement the said order.