RAGHAVAN PILLAI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 joined service of the first respondent State as Lower Division Clerks. Petitioner was senior to respondents 3 and 4. In the gradation list of Lower Division Clerks as on 1-1-1956, he ranked 774 as against 775 and 831 of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 were later promoted as Upper Division Clerks, and in the final seniority list Ext. P2 dated 30-4-1976 the petitioner was assigned rank 438 with date of appointment 28-5-1963 as Upper Division Clerk, as against 440 and 468 of respondents 3 and 4. Based on this seniority, the petitioner was duly promoted as Head Clerk, Junior Superintendent as Senior Superintendent, prior to respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) After publication of the seniority list Ext. P2, Government promoted one Padmanabha Pillai in preference to others, by name K.K. Mathew and P.P. John, which resulted in those two persons moving this court by writ petition O.P. No. 2496 of 1980. Therein it was admitted by Government that there was some mistake on their part in fixing the rank and seniority of K.K. Mathew and P.P. John. They undertook to rectify the mistake. But in purported rectification of the said mistake, Government modified Ext. P2 list substantially and altered the inter se ranking of the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Upper Division Clerks, though that was not in issue at all. The result was the petitioner got shuttled down to rank No. 558 while respondents 3 and 4 stood elevated to Nos. 438 and 466. The petitioner's date of appointment as Upper Division Clerk was also altered as 29-8-1963 from 28-5-1963. This variation was made without any notice to the petitioner. He represented against it before Government. Simultaneously, he moved this court by writ petition O.P. No. 7003 of 1981, which was disposed of by the judgment Ext. P6. This court held that the failure of the authorities to afford opportunity to the petitioner to state his case before the rank assigned in Ext. P2 was disturbed, was improper; but as his representations were pending before Government, they were directed to be disposed of within a period of three months.

(3.) The petitioner supplemented his earlier representations with additional memorandum Ext. P7. However, and according to the petitioner, without applying the mind to the various contentions raised, Government refused to alter the rank assigned to the petitioner in the revised seniority list. They stated so in their letter Ext. P8 dated 16-6-1984. The petitioner made an application Ext. P9 for review, setting forth various grounds, but that was not considered. This original petition was therefore filed for relief.