M.RADHA Vs. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims seniority above the 3rd respondent. The writ petition was filed at a time when both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were working as U.D.Clerks.

(2.) According to the petitioner, she was appointed as L.D.Clerk under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme as per Ext.P1 order dated 08.02.1995. Petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent were appointed as per Ext.P1 order and joined duty on 09.02.1995. Their probation was declared as per Ext.P2 order. When the provisional seniority list was published, she was placed below the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objection on 29.11.2010 stating that both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent joined duty as L.D.Clerk on the same day - 09.02.1995 and submitted that she should have been assigned seniority above the 3rd respondent as she is elder to the 3rd respondent. However, Ext.P4 final seniority list was issued placing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent at Sl.No.82 and 81 respectively with date of appointment as L.D.Clerk dated 09.02.1995. Even though the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation before the Administrator, there was no positive action. Therefore petitioner filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 seniority list to the extent it assigned her seniority below the 3rd respondent and seeking a direction to the respondent to revise the seniority list in accordance with Regulation 15 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulations, 1983.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit stating that both the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent entered service under the Guruvayoor Devaswom on 09.02.1995. But the appointment of the petitioner as Copyist and that of 3rd respondent as L.D.Clerk was evident from Ext.P1 order. Pointing out that the post of L.D.Clerks and that of Copyist are different categories as seen from Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulation, 1983 and service registers in respect of both the parties, the respondents 1 and 2 stated that Regulation 15 would not apply in the case of employees appointed in different posts. It was further stated that petitioner was appointed as Copyist against a vacancy, which arose on category change granted to one Sri.K.Chandran from the post of Copyist to L.D.Clerk. It is further stated that husband of the 3rd respondent died in harness on 11.02.1992 whereas the father of the petitioner died in harness on 29.08.1993. It was stated that application for compassionate employment was submitted by the 3rd respondent earlier to that of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner did not raise any complaint when the 3rd respondent was promoted as U.D.Clerk on 12.04.2004. Petitioner, who accepted the promotion on 01.06.2004 did not challenge the promotion granted to 3rd respondent on 12.04.2004. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has been senior all throughout and therefore the seniority was assigned to her in accordance with law.