NG DEEPA Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Assistant Grade II in the Kerala Legislature Secretariat. She got appointment as such, under the compassionate employment scheme of the Government, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1 in this writ petition. She was appointed under the compassionate employment scheme by Ext.P3 order dated 28.3.2001, pursuant to an application dated 5.11.1999. Pursuant to the said appointment, the petitioner joined duty on 5.4.2001. THE 3rd respondent was another person who was appointed as Assistant Grade II under the Compassionate employment scheme. She submitted her application on 4.5.1999. She was appointed on 26.9.2001 and she joined duty on 3.10.2001. In between the joining of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, respondents 6 to 20 were appointed through Public Service Commission as per advice dated 3.8.2001. THE petitioner's appointment was regularised with effect from 5.4.2001 and that of the 3rd respondent was regularised with effect from 3.10.2001. Now, a dispute has arisen, as to as between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, who is senior in service in the cadre of Assistant Grade II. As a necessary consequence, insofar as respondents 6 to 20 come in between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, they also have a claim for seniority over the petitioner, if the 3rd respondent is given seniority over the petitioner. Taking into account the fact that the 3rd respondent submitted a valid application for compassionate employment on 4.5.1999 earlier than the petitioner who submitted a valid application on 5.11.1999 now in Ext.P14(a) seniority list, respondents 3 and 6 to 20 have been placed above the petitioner. THE 5th respondent, who is a confidential assistant, has also got himself impleaded in this writ petition, insofar as if the petitioner is put below the 3rd respondent in seniority, he also would be benefitted in the matter of promotion to a higher post to which both posts are feeder categories. THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) THE petitioner contends that the service conditions of gazetted and non-gazetted officers of the Legislature Secretariat of the Government of Kerala is governed by the Kerala Legislature Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1979, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P15. Rule 8 of the same reads thus:

(3.) AT no point of time, the 3rd respondent chose to challenge the appointment of the petitioner earlier to the 3rd respondent. When the 3rd respondent entered service, the petitioner was already working there. Therefore, the 3rd respondent knew very well that the petitioner was appointed earlier to the 3rd respondent. But she did not choose to challenge the appointment of the petitioner, which was earlier to the 3rd respondent, on the ground that the 3rd respondent applied for compassionate employment earlier to the petitioner.