A MOHANAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are challenging their reversion from the post of Revenue Officer Grade-II to the post of Superintendent in the Kerala Municipal Common Service and the consequential cancellation of their seniority and its re-fixation.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is as follows:- As per Original order viz., order No.B4/271/86 dated 29.3.1986 the ratio based promotion in the ratio 1:1 was implemented in the Municipal Common Service. By a subsequent order viz., B4 (RDS)/12360/86 dated 4.8.1986 the said ratio promotion was given retrospective effect from 16.9.1985. Though the petitioners acquired the test qualification on 20.2.1986 they were not promoted along with the first batch of promotees and overlooking their seniority their juniors were promoted owing to the reason that the petitioners were not test qualified as on 16.9.1985. In the gradation list they were assigned rank Nos.580 and 583 respectively much below their juniors. Against such fixation of seniority they filed objections claiming ranks respectively at 420 and 422. Though their objections were not acted upon, as per a subsequent order dated 5.11.1986, they were promoted to the post of U.D.Clerk. Later, as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.1.1989 retrospectivity was attached to their promotion from 17.5.1986. It is the case of the petitioners that they should have been given promotion with effect from 29.3.1986 along with the first batch of promotees pursuant to the implementation of 1:1 ratio and then, with effect from 16.9.1985 when the ratio based promotion was given retrospective effect. Staking such claims they filed representations. In the meanwhile, in 2001 they were promoted as Revenue Inspectors/Head Clerks and thereafter in 2004 they were promoted as Superintendents. According to them, on account of non-rectification of the irregularity crept in the matter of their promotion in 1986 they lost their due seniority in the said promoted posts. As per Ext.P2, the petitioners' seniority was restored and they were assigned rank Nos.419(A) and 421(A) in the 1986 gradation list. Later, as per Ext.P3, their seniority was re-fixed in the cadre of Revenue Inspector/Head Clerk as also in the cadre of Superintendent. Pursuant to Ext.P3 the first petitioner was promoted and posted as Revenue Inspector Grade-II from 13.6.2008 as per Ext.P4 and the second petitioner was so promoted as per Ext.P5 from 9.7.2008. Subsequently, based on complaints from respondents 3 to 5 at the instance of respondents 6 and 7 Ext.P6 order was passed cancelling the promotions and reverting them to the post of Superintendent. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P6 they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.1201 of 2009. Initially, as per Ext.P7 order Ext.P6 order of reversion was stayed. Later, that writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment. Ext.P6 order of reversion was quashed and the second respondent was directed to hear the petitioners and party respondents therein and to take a fresh decision. Accordingly, hearing was conducted by the Joint Director of Urban Affairs on 5.3.2009 and Ext.P9 was passed without any application of mind. As per the same, Ext.P6 was upheld and the petitioners were reverted and posted as Superintendents. It is with the aforesaid averments that this writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a declaration that the seniority restored to the petitioners as per Exts.P2 and P3 are valid besides seeking issuance of a writ (?) directing the second respondent to restore the petitioners' seniority in service and promotion as per Ext.P3.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.