P.C. SURESH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an applicant before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). He was appointed in the Collegiate Education Department vide Ext. P1 order dated 1/6/1988. His appointment was regularised by order dated 5/9/1988. On his own request, he got an inter -departmental transfer to the Panchayat Department by Ext. P3 order dated 13/10/1999. In the said order, it was specifically mentioned that the applicant has expressed his willingness to abide by the terms and conditions governing interdepartmental transfer as laid in the G.O. Dated 2/1/1961. It is also mentioned that he will be junior most in the category of L.D. Clerk in Ernakulam District and he will complete his period of probation afresh in the cadre of L.D. Clerk in the Panchayat Department. The petitioner joined the Panchayat Department on 1/11/1999. Thereafter, he submitted Ext. P4 representation dated 6/12/1999 praying to post him back to the Collegiate Education Department. Based on the said request, he was transferred back as LD Clerk in the Collegiate Department by order dated 17/1/2000. Therein also the transfer was made subject to the terms contained in G.O. dated 2/1/1961. When the Directorate of Collegiate Education moved the Government for extension of the period of deputation of the petitioner, the Government sought to know under what circumstances the petitioner was given re -appointment in the Collegiate Education Department. The 2nd respondent gave a reply to the Government. Thereafter, further queries were raised by the Government by communication dated 26/7/2003. In answer to that letter, the 2nd respondent -Director of Collegiate Education submitted Ext. P7 reply pleading that the case of the petitioner's transfer might be treated as a special case. Vide Ext. P8 order, the Government answered that the re -appointment of the petitioner in the Collegiate Education Department could not be approved. Against that, the petitioner filed Ext. P9 representation. Thereafter, the petitioner moved this Court and this Court directed the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext. P9 representation. Pursuant to that, Ext. P12 order was passed by the Government ordering to condone the irregularities in re -transferring the petitioner to the Collegiate Education Department. But, it was further ordered that the petitioner's seniority in the Department will be considered only with effect from 17/1/2000. Against the same, the petitioner filed Ext. P13 review petition before the Government and thereafter filed Writ Petition before this Court challenging Ext. P12 and also praying for a direction to the first respondent to pass orders on Ext. P13 filed by him. When the matter was taken up by the Tribunal for hearing, the matter itself was argued without any reference to the request of the petitioner to consider Ext. P13 review petition. The Tribunal, accordingly proceeded to consider the matter and found that the transfer and re -transfer of the petitioner to the Collegiate Department has taken place on the basis of the Government orders. It also found that the petitioner will lose his original seniority and he could claim seniority only from the date of joining in the Collegiate Department.

(2.) WE heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.