AJAYA KUMAR S; M PUSHKARAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE; GOVERNMENT OF KERALA; ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER; SAJEEVU KUMAR T P, PREVENTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were promoted as Excise Preventive Officers in the Thiruvananthapuram and Kannur Divisions w.e.f. 14/3/2005 and 11/10/2002 respectively. Ext.P10 is the state wise provisional seniority list of Excise Preventive Officers published on 23/7/2008, to which the petitioners filed Exts.P11 and P12 objections. It is stated that the Assistant Excise Commissioner submitted Exts.P13 and P13(a) reports endorsing the objections raised by the petitioners. But however, according to the petitioners, Ext.P14 provisional seniority list was published, to which again, they filed Ext.P15 objection. However, without adverting to the objection so filed, Ext.P16 final seniority list was published and it is challenging Ext.P16, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all this exercise was undertaken pursuant to Ext.P9, GO(MS) No.22/08/TD dated 13/2/2008. It is stated that Ext.P9 was challenged before this Court in OP No.34203/2000 and that the said original petition was allowed leading to cancellation of Ext.P16. Against the said judgment, WA No.1050/09 and connected cases were filed, which were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Krishna Kumar,2009 3 KLT 274, upholding the validity of Ext.P9. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, though they accept the fact that the Division Bench has rendered the aforesaid judgment, apart from stating that as a consequence thereof, Ext.P16 seniority list has been revived, they do not say that the representations have been considered or orders passed in pursuance to the Division Bench judgment.