IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9107 of 2010(K) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MADHUSOODANAN NAIR N., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.S.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, 'PANCHAVADI', KOTTAMUGAL, KOOVALASSERY, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, HCT 6067 (ASI GRADE), CRIME DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (SOUTH ZONE) OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 9107 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Head Constable(Grade ASI) in the General Executive Branch of the Police Department. Earlier, he has approached the first respondent raising grievances against the final seniority list of Head Constables (GE) drawn as on 1.1.2003. As per judgment dated 26.3.2009 in WP(C)No. 9725/09 this court directed the Government to consider and pass orders on the said representation. Accordingly, the first respondent considered the same and as per Ext.P3 issued orders to the second respondent to revise Ext.P1 final seniority list. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the specific direction by the first respondent, the second respondent is not taking steps to implement Ext.P3 order. 2. It is obvious of Ext.P3 order that it was after considering the contentions of the petitioner raised against Ext.P1 final seniority list, that the same was passed. As per Ext.P3, a positive direction was issued to the respondent to WPC.9107 of 2010 : 2 : revise Ext.P1 list. There cannot be any dispute that the second respondent is bound by the direction issued by the first respondent. In that view of the matter, there is no reason for the second respondent for not implementing the directions in Ext.P3 and revising Ext.P1 seniority list. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to implement the direction in Ext.P3 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. To Judge