K ANILKUMAR Vs. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ appeals are filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.7758 of 2012. W.A.No.1657/13 is filed by the fourth respondent in the writ petition, whereas W.A.Nos.543 & 568/14 are filed by the third parties on the basis of the leave obtained by them.

(2.) We shall first deal with W.A.No.1657 of 2013 for convenience. The writ petition was filed by respondents 5 and 6 seeking a direction against the first respondent Board to make promotion to the post of L.D.Clerk/Devaswom Assistant directly on the basis of Ext.P3 rank list. When the writ petition was heard, respondents placed reliance on Ext.R4(e) judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.21209 of 2008 and contended that some of the vacancies are to be filled up otherwise than from the rank list. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge observed that Ext.R4(c) judgment was obtained suppressing Ext.P8 judgment and that therefore it is vitiated by fraud and hence null and void. On that basis, the learned single Judge directed the first respondent to make appointments to the remaining vacancies from Ext.P3 rank list. It is this judgment which is under challenge in these appeals.

(3.) The fourth respondent entered service as Night Watchman (a last grade servant) on 18.10.1996. He, being a matriculate and having completed five years service under the Board, was eligible for the post of LDC/Devaswom Assistant, in terms of Ext.P2 executive order where 25% of the vacancies were reserved for last grade servants. He thus became eligible in 2001 and in 2002, similarly placed employees claimed promotion and filed W.P.(C)No.2999 of 2002 which was disposed of by judgment dated 9.6.2003 directing the Board to consider their claims. While the matter was pending before the Board, by Ext.R4(c) dated 11.12.2003, the Board introduced test and interview for promotion to the post of L.D.Clerk/Devaswom Assistant. Incidentally, we should also mention that the rule remained as such till 1.7.2008 when the Board amended the rule by providing that all those last grade servants who completed probation could appear for the test. In 2004, two employees by name Sankaranarayanan and Gireesan who are the appellants in W.A.No.568/2014 filed W.P.(C)No.21146/04 challenging Ext.R4 (c) mentioned above contending that the vacancies which occurred prior to 1.1.2004 should be filled up without test or interview. That writ petition was dismissed by this Court by Ext.P8 judgment rendered on 9.8.2004. In Ext.P8 judgment, this Court referred to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.16245/2004, where a similar claim and a prayer for a declaration that Ext.R4(c) which was Ext.P9 therein, has no retrospectivity was declined and this Court ordered that the Board would consider the claim of the petitioner therein in accordance with the rules in force and in accordance with the exigencies of service.