IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19815 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. ZAKIR.A., PC Q 5248, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. 2. VINOD.M., PC Q 5285, OCHIRA POLICE STATION, OACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOLLAM. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED. (I.A. 8658/2008) 4. C. VIJAYAN PILLAI, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS, PC 4652, AR CAMP, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT VARAMBEL HOUSE, KOTTANKARA, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM 14. ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT PLEADED.(I.A. 8709/2008) 5. MOHANAKUMAR, P.C.Q/ NO.4723, A.R.CAMP, KOLLAM. ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.8658/2008 DTD.11.7.2008. ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.8709/2008 DTD.11.7.2008. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.P.A.KUMARAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.SURAJ.S FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.VINEETHA B. FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.BIMAL K.NATH FOR ADDL. R5 SRI.S.JAMAL SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR SRI.SREEVALSAN.V BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) 20312/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP.(C) Nos.19815 & 20312 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Both these writ petitions being connected, they are disposed of by a common judgment. Petitioners are working in the Local Police at Kollam. They were recruited on the basis of the advise by the Public Service Commission in the Armed Police Battalion in Kollam. Thereafter they were appointed in the District Armed Reserve in Kollam and thereafter they were appointed in the Local Police. They are aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P6. ( I am referring to the exhibits in W.P.(C) 19815 of 2008). According to them, there was a seniority list prepared and that is prepared correctly. Still later, it is their case that on the basis of Ext.P5, Ext.P6 seniority list has been prepared. This is by way of finalising Ext.P3 provisional seniority list. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the additional respondents, who got themselves impleaded, besides the learned Government Pleader. 3. According to the petitioners, the date of advise assigned to them will determine the seniority. The contesting respondents, who are inter-district transferees from other Districts on the other hand would WPC.19815 & 20312/2008. 2 contend that it is the date of joining in the Armed Reserve which should determine the issue. The Director General of Police in fact in Ext.P5 considered this question in relation to the Trivandrum District and upheld the contention taken on behalf of the inter-district transferees that in so far as they have joined in the District prior to persons who were appointed in the Battalion, the inter-district transferees should be treated as seniors. Apparently Ext.P5 came to be challenged before this court by members of the Battalion, who were appointed to the Armed Reserve in Kollam. There was a stay obtained. Later that stay came to be vacated. This is clear from Ext.R4(b) order of the Division Bench. It is the case of the petitioners that there are a number of discrepancies in Ext.P6 seniority list, which have more fully set out in the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit. They would contend that the issue which was raised in Ext.R4(b) is not the only issue which is raised in these writ petitions. According to them this is a case where the inter-district transfers have been made in violation of the Government Order, which has already been produced along with the reply affidavit and the persons have been given inter-district transfers even without waiting for completion of the period of five years besides the nine month training. It is also the case of the petitioners that other discrepancies are also there in Ext.P6, which will be clear from a perusal of Ext.P6 itself. WPC.19815 & 20312/2008. 3 It is further stated that they have filed Ext.P7, which purports to be a petition invoking powers of the Government under Rule 27B of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules. It is the case of the petitioners that this complaint lodged by the petitioners may be ordered to be considered and till such time as a decision is taken, they may not be sent back to the Local Police. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents and also the learned Government Pleader would contend that having regard to the background of the events, no interim order should be passed by this court. Counsel for the additional respondents would point out that the additional respondents have come into the Armed Reserve much earlier than the petitioners. They would contend that Ext.P5, which related to Trivandrum District has been implemented in all the Districts except in Kollam and it may be noted that even after the interim order granted in W.P.(C) No.27694 of 2006 was vacated this was not finalised in Kollam as it was done in other Districts. It was further pointed out that petitioners were infact transferred to the Local Police after the modification of the interim order by the court. WPC.19815 & 20312/2008. 4 5. Having considered the facts, I feel that the petition filed by the petitioners, namely Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) 19815 of 2008 and Exts. P6(a), P6(b) and P6(c) in W.P.(C) 20312 of 2008 should be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: There will be a direction to the first respondent in both the writ petitions to consider and take a decision on Ext.P7 series in W.P.(C) 19815 of 2008 and Ext.P6 series in W.P.(C) 20312 of 2008 in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and any other affected party and a decision shall be taken thereon within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meantime, I make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to seek interim relief before the first respondent. In order to facilitate the petitioners to approach the first respondent, status quo regarding the petitioners will be maintained for a period of one week from today and it is for the petitioners to seek interim relief before the Government and it is open to the Government to pass such orders in accordance with law as it is advised. (K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE) sb