JANARDHANAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common issues arise for consideration in these Original Petitions. So I consider it advantageous to dispose of them by a common judgment. O.P. 10381/90 is treated as the main petition. Issues raising in that case are to be dealt with in detail. The decision therein will govern the other Original Petitions as well.

(2.) Government by G.O. M.S. 500/89/RD dated 21-6-1989 extended the period of probation of 124 Deputy Tahsildars who failed to pass the obligatory test within the period of probation or the extended period of probation till the date of their acquisition of qualification. On the basis of that order, the Board of Revenue prepared a seniority list. The Government Order and the list so prepared were challenged before this court in O.P. 2709/89 and connected petitions. This court by decision in Appukuttan Nair v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 806 quashed the Government Order and the list. The Board of Revenue was thereupon directed to prepare a proper seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars and to review all promotions effected to the cadre of Tahsildars and Deputy Collectors. That decision was challenged by the Government and the Board of Revenue in Writ Appeal 727/90. That Writ Appeal and connected appeals filed by affected parties were dismissed by Division Bench by judgment dated 5 -11-1990. Thereupon the Board of Revenue prepared a seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars. While preparing that list, offers who could not complete probation within the period of probation from the assigned date of promotion were not included. Consequently a large number of senior Deputy Tahsildars are denied their legitimate promotion.

(3.) The injustice caused by the preparation of the seniority list as stated above is evident from the facts in O.P. 10389/90. Petitioner was actually promoted as Deputy Tahsildar by proceedings dated 21-4-1986. In pursuance to that order she joined duty on 29-4-1986. The Board of Revenue published final seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars from 25-9-1962 to 31-5-1986. In that list petitioner was assigned rank No. 1632 with the assigned date of promotion as 28-4-1981. Thus there occurred a difference of five years between the date of actual promotion and the assigned date.