GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER entered service as a Second Grade Surveyor on the advice of the Public Service Commission on 29-12-1961. He was promoted as First Grade Surveyor on 7-8-1965. That promotion was regularised with effect from 26-10-1965. He was further promoted as Head Surveyor on 2-11-1973. He is continuing in that post now. In Ext. P5 order dated 14-4-1970 ordering promotions, transfers and postings of Head Surveyors, juniors of the petitioner are said to have been promoted as Head Surveyors. Some more were so promoted in ext. P6 order dated 20-5-1971. Admittedly, petitioner had not acquired necessary test qualifications for such promotion by that time. It is asserted that 20 of his juniors were promoted as Head Surveyors between 1969 and 3-10-1972. A list of Head Surveyors as on 1-1-1974 was published pursuant to a decision of this court in O. P. No. 2368 of 1973 along with Ext. P12 dated 3-11-1985. PETITIONER submits that that list contains a lot of mistakes. There was some dispute relating to the period during which the officers had acquired test qualifications prescribed by the Rules. That controversy arose due to the judgment of this court in W. A. No. 43 and 45 of 1982. A provisional gradation list of Head surveyors as on 1-11-1978 was published by the Director of Survey and Land records on 30-9-1981 inviting objections. After considering all the objections, ext. P2 list was published on 26-2-1982. In Ext. P2 (a) seniority list attached thereto, petitioner was given a lower rank than some of his juniors, who were promoted as Head Surveyors by Exts. P5 and P6 orders, and those listed in ext. P7. In Ext. P3 dated 19-6-1982, the Government directed the Director of Survey and Land Records to review promotions, taking into account the interpretation that the period of exemption available to allotted officers had ended on 3-10-1972 and not 6-1-1976 PETITIONER submits that he expected that if a comprehensive review was undertaken, he would get a higher ranking, because he had passed all the required test qualifications earlier than 3-10-1972. However, the review directed in Ext. P3 was confined only to persons holding the post of Superintendents of Survey and Land Records. PETITIONER, therefore, submitted Ext. P8 representation dated 11-6-1984, requesting that " (i) the promotions made to the post of Head Surveyors during the periods from 1970 to 1972 may kindly be reviewed as directed in the reference cited and my name may be put in the proper place in the seniority list of Head Surveyors, and (ii) I may be promoted as Superintendent of Survey". Ext. P9 dated 12-10-1984 was sent thereafter, requesting that "necessary steps may kindly be taken to get my promotion as Head Surveyor reviewed on the grounds stated in the representation dated 11-6-1984". In answer to Ext. P9, the Director of survey and Land Records ordered that promotions made to the category of superintendent of Survey & Land Records for the period from 1970 onwards were reviewed strictly on the basis of the seniority list of Head Surveyors as on 1-4-1970 and 1-11-1978, and that the petitioner's promotion as superintendent would be considered according to his seniority in the cadre of head Surveyors when vacancy arose. Ext. P11 is a judgment whereby this court directed that promotions in the category of Superintendents, Survey and Land records, should be reviewed. PETITIONER submits that Exts. P8 and P9 were not properly considered. He, therefore, seeks the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext. P3 order, review Ext. P2 (a) list by effecting necessary modifications and restore to the petitioner his due rank above those mentioned in Ext. P7 list. He also seeks a declaration that he is senior to those included in Ext. P7 list. A writ of mandamus to so recognise his seniority is another relief sought by the petitioner. Yet another relief which he seeks is to direct respondents 1 and 2 to promote the petitioner as superintendent of Survey and Land Records and to fix bis seniority in the category of Superintendent of Survey and Land Records over those who were included in Ext. P7 list.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, petitioner was not qualified when Exts. P5 and P6 orders were issued. He was aware of Ext. P12 list of Head surveyors as on 1-11-1978. Ext. P. 5 was issued as early as on 14-4-1970. Ext. P6 was issued as early as on 20-5-1971. In both of them, persons junior to the petitioner in the category of First Grade Surveyors were promoted as Head Surveyors, whereas the petitioner was continued as First Grade Surveyor. Evidently, petitioner had no complaint against such promotions for a period of 14 years from Ext. PS and 13 years from Ext. P6. The earliest representation which he had submitted claiming rank above those juniors who were promoted earlier was Ext. P8. The relief which the petitioner seeks against Ext. P7 is in respect of persons who were promoted still earlier from 1969 onwards. Ext. P12 was issued pursuant to directions from this Court on 3-11-1985. Apparently, petitioner had no complaint against the ranking given to his erstwhile juniors in the feeder category of First Grade Surveyors in the list attached to Ext. P12. Though there is no specific provision to the effect that relief under Art. 226 of the constitution of India should not be granted if the petition is not filed within a specified time, this court has almost always insisted that the period of 90 days shall ordinarily be treated as the reasonable time limit within which its jurisdiction shall be invoked. See Mariamma Mathai v. Mathulla Pothen ILR 1974 (1) Kerala 598, J & P. Coats India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India ILR 1974 (1)Kerala 255, Thomas v. Union of India, ILR 1972 Kerala 461. The Supreme Court had held that in matters of promotion, a period of one year after the action impugned was the maximum period within which this jurisdiction shall be invoked (See Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271 ). The Supreme Court and this court had always insisted that if the court was approached beyond a reasonable period of time, there shall be explanation for the delay, and in its absence, the relief is liable to be refused. (See Chitravanja Menon v. State of kerala AIR 1977 SC 1720, State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantharai & others, air 1976 SC 2617 etc.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P10 refers only to Ext. P9 representation. He, therefore, seeks a due consideration and disposal of Exts. P8 and P9 notwithstanding Ext. P10. The effect of granting this relief will be to reopen promotions effected as early as in 1969 and reassign seniority to the petitioner, notwithstanding the earlier promotions given by Exts. P5 and P6. The seniority list of Head Surveyors, which was published in Ext. P12, may also have to be altered drastically. I do not think that even the grant of this alternative relief is called for in the facts and circumstances of this case. Petitioner had admittedly cot challenged any earlier promotion of his juniors. He had slept over his rights to claim earlier promotion, or at least earlier ranking. It is better that at this distance of time, matters be allowed to rest as they were for the last over a decade and a half. No extraordinary circumstances compelling this court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of a person who chose to sleep over his rights for a long period of time is made out. The Original Petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed. Issue a carbon copy of this judgment to counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. Dismissed. . .