THOMAS P JOSEPH Vs. HIGH COURT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in the three connected WPCs. are holding various posts in the State Higher Judiciary in the cadre of Super Time Scale district Judges. Their dates of entry into service, promotion as Selection grade District Judges and further promotion as Super Time Scale District Judges are given below: The last promotions given to petitioners vide proceedings dated 2. 11. 2004 is produced in WPC 17897 of 2006 as Ext. P4. Even though respondents 2 and 3 were seniors to petitioners in the cadre of Selection Grade district Judges, while issuing Ext. P4 promoting petitioners as Super Tune Scale district judges, respondents 2 and 3 were then denied promotion to that cadre on account of adverse remarks in their confidential reports. However, later the adverse remarks about respondents 2 and 3 in their confidential reports were expunged and based on the same, the High Court retrospectively promoted them to the cadre of Super Time Scale District Judges vide Ext. P6 dated 6. 1. 2006 overlooking the seniority of petitioners who were in that cadre for more than a year before respondents 2 and 3 were promoted. Even though petitioners filed representations against reversal of their seniority on account of retrospective promotion given to respondents 2 and 3 in the cadre of Super Time Scale district Judges, the same was rejected by the High Court vide Ext. P8. These writ Petitions are accordingly filed challenging the retrospective promotion given to respondents 2 and 3 vide Ext. P6 which is confirmed by Ext. P8.

(2.) I have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners, for the High Court and for the contesting respondents. Parties and documents referred herein are those in WPC 17897 of 2006. Detailed counter affidavits are filed by all the respondents and copies of service records pertaining to confidential reports of respondents 2 and by the High Court and I have perused the same.

(3.) IT is obvious from Exts. P6, P8 and from the counter affidavit that the promotion of respondents 2 and 3 to the cadre of Super Time scale District Judges was again considered by the High Court after the adverse remarks in their confidential reports were expunged on 5. 7. 2005 and 1. 6. 2005 respectively as stated above. Petitioners are not challenging the promotion given to respondents 2 and 3 to the cadre of Super Time Scale District Judges vide ext. P6 dated 6. 1. 2006 and the challenge is limited to the retrospectively given to the promotions overlooking the seniority, petitioners had over respondents 2 and 3 through their promotions vide Ext. P4 which was issued more than one year before Ext. P6.