LAWS(KER)-2009-11-253

M RAMAKRISHNAN, RESERVE INSPECTOR; S MOHAMMED KABEER,RESERVE INSPECTOR Vs. STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; K J MICHAEL, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; V DEVADASAN,ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; V AJANTHAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; P A CYRIL SHAJI, ASSISTANT; P S SURESH KUMAR,ASSISTANT

Decided On November 18, 2009
M RAMAKRISHNAN, RESERVE INSPECTOR; S MOHAMMED KABEER,RESERVE INSPECTOR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE; K J MICHAEL, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; V DEVADASAN,ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; V AJANTHAN, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT; P A CYRIL SHAJI, ASSISTANT; P S SURESH KUMAR,ASSISTANT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are working as Reserve Inspectors in the Armed Reserve Police. Though several prayers are sought, the only relief pressed before this Court is that respondents 1 & 2 should be directed to implement the directions in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.A.No.2189/2002 and connected cases.

(2.) In Ext.P1 judgment, dealing with the appointment to the post of Reserve Sub Inspectors to the 50% quota earmarked for direct recruitment, this Court held that in the direct recruitment quota, there was a dearth of 47 candidates and that 40 candidates were already advised from the list and had joined for training. It was also held that in the direct recruitment quota, only 7 more vacancies could have been reported and only that much candidates could have been advised and appointed and those advised in excess of 7 based on the interim orders that were passed in the Original Petitions filed by such persons, were not eligible to continue. However, taking note of Ext.R2(a) Government Order dated 17/06/1999 issued by the 1st respondent exercising its powers under Rule 39 of the General Rules of KS & SSR, this Court held that such excess appointees will have to take seniority from the date of the order.

(3.) This direction in the judgment, necessarily, will call for a review of the seniority of the persons concerned. However, review has not been undertaken so far, and it is therefore that this writ petition has been filed by two persons, who were promotee Reserve Sub Inspectors, who were also not party to Ext.P1 judgment, praying for appropriate directions for carrying out the review as directed in Ext.P1 judgment.