BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. RAM MOHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above cases have been referred to the Full Bench as the correctness of the Division Bench judgment in W. A. 175/80,305/83,980/87 was doubted. The question turns round the true scope and content of R.8 Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as the K.S.S.R.).

(2.) We shall first deal with the Writ Appeals. Both the Writ Appeals are filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P. No. 6380/89. In W.A, No. 69/95, there are 15 appellants of which appellants 1 to 4 are respondents 3,5,11 and 17. The rest of the appellants filed the appeal after getting leave from the Division Bench, The additional fifth respondent got himself impleaded in W.A. No. 69/95. W.A. No. 171/95 is filed by respondents 8,10,19,22 to 26 in the Original Petition. Petitioners in O.P. No. 6380/89 were Village Extension Officers of the Rural Development Department. They joined as Village Extension Officer Grade II. Third respondent in the Original Petition also joined as Village Extension Officer, Grade II. Third respondent is impleaded in the Original Petition in a representative capacity.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is as follows: The third respondent and others were selected for appointment in the Cooperative Department as Junior Inspector / Junior Auditor. After they were selected for appointment, the above persons joined the service of Cooperative Department. They relinquished their rights in the Rural Development Department. The lien, if any, in the Rural Development Department had been terminated. Hence, the case of the petitioners is that the services of the above persons in the Rural Development Department should not be taken into consideration. But contrary to this, the names of the third respondent and others were still retained in the seniority list of Village Extension Officers Grade II in the Rural Development Department and they were also given promotion as Village Extension Officers while allowing them to continue in other duties. They challenged Exts. P2 to P5 by which these Officers were given promotion in the parent Department. In the Original Petition, there is a further allegation that the above persons are ordered to be reverted to the Rural Development Department. Hence, the prayer in the Original Petition was to quash Exts. P2 to P5 and also to quash the reversion granted to such persons to Rural Development Department.