M M SALEELAMOL, FULL TIME SWEEPER Vs. STATE OF KERALA; DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS; DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS; E K THANKAMANI; B SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P10.

(2.) Petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 joined as Part Time Sweepers on 26.61996. They were made Full Time Sweepers with effect from 11.10.1998. In Ext.P3 provisional seniority list, petitioner was at Sl. No.36, respondents 4 and 5 are at Sl. Nos.38 and 40. However, in Ext.P4 final seniority list, petitioner was at Sl. No.42 and respondents 4 and 5 were at Sl. No.33 and 35. Petitioner represented against Ext.P4 by Exts.P6 and P7 and by Ext.P9 judgment of this court the 2nd respondent was directed to send Exts.P6 and P7 to the first respondent and the first respondent was directed to consider the objections. It was accordingly Ext.P10 order was issued which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) A reading of Ext.P10 shows that apart from referring to the relative seniority position of the parties in Ext.P4 final seniority list, which itself was under challenge, there is no explanation what so ever as to why the seniority position as reflected in Ext.P3 provisional seniority list was upset and the seniority was assigned as shown Ext.P4. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner has not been adverted to in Ext.P10. For that reason without expressing anything on the merits of the contention raised I am inclined to set aside Ext.P10. Accordingly, Ext.P10 will stand set aside. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the matter as directed in Ext.P9, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, with notice to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above.