KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P. No. 1710 of 1979-C, who was till then Assistant Grade I in the Public Works (Transport A) Department of the Government Secretariat, Trivandrum, was appointed as per Ext. P-1 G.O. (MS) No. 6760/LA. 12/72 dated 2-5-1974 to the post of Section Officer, Secretariat of Kerala Legislature, created by G.O. (MS) No. 6760/LA.12/72 dated 2-12-1972, the effective date of advice by the Kerala Public Service Commission in respect of him being 1-4-1974 He joined duty in the Kerala Legislative Secretariat on 6-5-1974, and on his having completed satisfactorily the. period of training in the post on 5-11-1974, he was posted to be Section Officer on probation with effect from 6-11-1974. Consequent to this posting, the additional 6th respondent, who was acting in the post of Section Officer created as per G.O.(MS) No. 6760/LA. 12/72 dated 2-12-1972, was shifted to another post, and the 4th respondent, an acting Section Officer, was reverted to be acting Senior Grade Assistant. Ext. P-2 is the Government Order dated 6-11-1974 posting the petitioner to be Section Officer on probation.

(2.) The 4th respondent who was promoted to be acting Section Officer on 11-3-1974 was regularly appointed to the post of Section Officer on 25-11-1974; the 5th respondent was promoted as acting Section Officer on 27-3-1974, and was regularly appointed as Section Officer on 11-8-1975; under Ext. P-5 the additional 6th respondent was promoted as acting Section Officer on 31-3-1973, and he was regularly appointed as a Section Officer on 25-11-1974; and the additional 7th respondent was appointed under Ext. P-7 on.24-11-1974 as an acting Section Officer, and he was regularly appointed as a Section Officer on 11-8-1975. The petitioner, having come to know that in the civil list as on 1-1-1976 respondents 4 and 5 respectively were shown as serial Nos. 19 and 20 in the category of Section Officer, and the petitioner's name was shown as Serial No. 21, the dates of appointment given being 25-11-1974, 11-8-1974 and 6-5-1974 respectively; and having noticed that not only on the very basis of the dates of appointment given in the civil list itself the petitioner was entitled to be assigned rank and seniority over respondents 4 and 5, but also that by virtue of the provisions contained in R.27(c) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the General Rules) his date of appointment ought to have been treated as 1-4-1974, that being the effective date of advice by the Public Service Commission in respect of him, filed this writ petition with a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to prepare a seniority and rank list of Section Officers of the Kerala Legislature Secretariat and to fix seniority and rank of the petitioner over respondents 4 and 5. Later, additional respondents 6 and 7 were impleaded, and the writ petition was amended incorporating an additional prayer for quashing the entries in the civil list so far as the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 are concerned and arranging them in such a way that the petitioner is listed as senior to respondents 4 to 7, for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to prepare a list of seniority of Section Officers of the Kerala Legislature Secretariat and fix the seniority and rank of the petitioner above respondents 4 to 7, for giving the petitioner retrospective promotion to the position of Under Secretary and for granting also other consequential reliefs arising therefrom. The learned single Judge by the judgment dated 26-6-1981 dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner did not succeed in establishing that the respondents were promoted temporarily only, and that their promotions were not on a regular basis. It is aggrieved by this decision of the learned single Judge that this writ appeal has been preferred by the petitioner in the writ petition.

(3.) There is no dispute that among respondents 4 to 7 the 6th respondent was the first to be prompted to be acting Section Officer, his date of promotion to the acting post in Ext. P-5 being 31-3-1973, whereas the date of promotion to be acting Section Officer in respect of respondents 4, 5 and 7 respectively being 11-3-1974, 27-3-1974 and 24-1-1974. There could, therefore, be no doubt that if the 6th respondent is not entitled to seniority or rank above the petitioner, respondents 4, 5 and 7 would not be entitled to claim to be seniors to the petitioner in the post of Section Officer.