IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20473 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.GOPI, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, NEMOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT PARAMBINTHALA VEEDU, CHERUVILA ROAD, VIZHAVOOR, MALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20473 of 2010 (H) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P6 order dated 18/09/2009 issued by the 2nd respondent is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Villageman by Ext.P1 order dated 18/12/1990. By Ext.P2 order dated 29/10/2006, he was promoted as Village Assistant. The unit of appointment for the post of Villageman is District wise, whereas for Village Assistant, it is State wise. The case of the petitioner is that if his seniority in the category of Villageman is properly consolidated State-wise and if his name is considered for promotion to the post of Village Assistant on that basis, as against 2006 when he was given promotion, he would have been promoted way back in 1993 itself. 3. For the publication of integrated seniority list of Villageman, representation was made by the petitioner and in Ext.P5 judgment dated 20/02/2009 in WP(C) No.2886/2009, the WP(C) No.20473/2010 -2- representation was ordered to be considered. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order dated 18/09/2009 has been passed. 4. In the impugned order (Ext.P6), insofar as Villageman is concerned, it is stated that District is the unit and that only after finalisation of the Special Rules can the integrated seniority list be prepared and finalized. Main contention raised by the petitioner is that for the purpose of fixation of seniority, finalisation of Special Rules is unnecessary for the reason that in the absence of Special Rules, seniority will have to be governed by Rule 27 of Part II, KS & SSR. 5. The only reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the Special Rules have to be finalised for preparation and finalisation of integrated seniority list of Villageman. Although generally Rule 27 will govern seniority, there is nothing preventing the Government from framing Special Rules governing seniority of any class of employees, different from the principles contained in Rule 27. This is permissible as per Rule 2 of Part-II, KS & SSR. Therefore, if the Government decides that Special Rules will have to be finalised before preparation and finalisation of the integrated seniority list of WP(C) No.20473/2010 -3- Villageman, in the absence of arbitrariness or malafides, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view. Therefore, I am not persuaded to think that even without waiting for the finalisation of the Special Rules, Government should finalise the integrated seniority list of Villageman. However that does not mean that finalisation of Special Rules can be kept pending endlessly leaving the seniority issue of the Villageman in uncertainty for ever. Now from Ext.P6 order and from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the Government is actively considering finalisation of the Special Rules. It being a legislative exercise, though this Court will not be justified in fixing any time limit as sought for, still having regard to the fact that an early quietus to the issue is warranted, I direct that this shall be done on an expeditious basis. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg