IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13815 of 2006(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.P.BABY, P.C.E. 5849, KOTTAPPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.MR.K.G.ANIL BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. TJHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOCHI CITY. 2. CHITHRANGATHAN, P.C.E. 6411, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, BINANIPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13815/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP. NO.9495/88 AND CONNECTED CASES DT. 25.7.90. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA. 1506/94 DT. 25.9.01. P3:- COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT DT. 29.6.05 ALONG WITH ITS DETAILS. P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SELECT LIST OF P.CS IN LOCAL IN ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. P5:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM DT. 18.5.05. P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DT. 27.10.05. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DT. 27.11.05. P8:- COPY OF THE WPC. 34737/05 DT. 13.12.05. P9:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE ELIGIBILITY LIST ON 25.2.06. P11:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 10.3.06. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3-34-06/EC DT. 20.3.06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ====================== W.P.(C) No. 13815 of 2006 ====================== Dated, this the 18th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P12 order passed by the first respondent pursuant to Exhibit P8 judgment is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the low ranking given to him in the seniority list of persons transferred to local police, which was sought to be rectified by filing several representations, which in turn, were directed to be considered in the light of Exhibit P1 to P3 produced in W.P.(C) No.34737 of 2005, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is pointed out by the petitioner that Exhibit P12 order passed by the first respondent is not in full conformity with Exhibit P8 judgment. The vacancy position disclosed in Exhibit P12 as 126 is also stated as not correct as according to the petitioner, actually 132 vacancies were available as revealed from the facts and figures furnished by the first W.P.(C) No. 13815/2006 -:2:- respondent himself in the additional affidavit filed in W.P. (C) No.29395 of 2004, which is produced as Exhibit P3 in the present writ petition. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. In Exhibit P3 additional affidavit submitted by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.29395 of 2004, the actual vacancy position as on 26-10-1990 has been declared as given below:- “1. Details of vacancy of local police as on 1-1-88 Pcs.79. 2. Details of vacancies which occurred from 1-1-88 to 31-12-88:- copy of letter No.A1-26189/89/EC dated 5-10-1990 enclosed and marked as Annexure A. 3. Number of eligible police personnel who were included in the list prepared for local transfer as on 1-1-88:- 641 - List enclosed and marked as Annexure B. 4. Number of AP Battalion personnel who were received on transfer during the period from 1-1-88 to 31-12-88:- Nil. 5. Details of personnel who were transferred to local police during the year 1988 from the list mentioned in item (3):- 339. 6. List of personnel who were transferred to local police during the year 1988 from among those AP Battalion personnel who were received on transfer vide item (4):- Nil. 7. Whether all the personnel included in the list prepared vide item 3 have been transferred to local police as on today. If not, the number of personnel remaining to be so transferred. Total in the list:- 641 W.P.(C) No. 13815/2006 -:3:- Number of personnel transferred as on today (i.e.as on PHQ letter dated 26-10-90):339. Number of personnel remaining to be transferred :- 302.” 5. From the above, it is very much evident that the total number of vacancies of local police constables as on 1-1-1988 (79) and the vacancies occurred from 1-1-1988 to 31-12-1988 as given in Annexure A thereunder (392) will make a total of 471 vacancies. It has been admitted in Exhibit P3 statement, under clause 7, that the total number of personnel transferred as on 26-10-1990 was only 339, showing the number of remaining personnel to be transferred as 302. This shows that, out of the total 471 available vacancies, only 339 personnel were accommodated as on 26-10-1990. As such, the resultant vacancies as on that date were '132' and not 126 as pointed out by the first respondent in Exhibit P12 order. The actual number of vacancies is very much relevant in so far as the petitioner is concerned, as his case is mainly that he would have been the next person to be included in the list by virtue of his seniority position as shown in W.P.(C) No. 13815/2006 -:4:- Annexure B list of eligible persons produced along with Exhibit P3, where he has been placed at Sl.No.474. It is stated that the last person given accommodation was P.C.5847 Omanakuttan at Sl.No.472 as confirmed in Exhibit P12 order issued by the first respondent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sl.No.473-PC 5848 Jyothish Kumar did not opt to come over to the local police and hence, the petitioner is the next man to have been given the benefit of placement in the local police and that he would have definitely been included if the actual number of vacancies had been computed correctly by the first respondent taking it as '132' in the place of 126. Having regard to the above circumstances, and particularly since no 'pre-decisional hearing' as directed to be given vide Exhibit P8 judgment was not given by the first respondent before passing Exhibit P12 order, the said order does not stand the test of law and facts and hence, it is set aside. W.P.(C) No. 13815/2006 -:5:- 6. The first respondent is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh, taking note of the observations made hereinbefore, of course after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as directed in Exhibit P8 judgment and also taking note of the contents of the additional affidavit dated 29-6-2005 filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.29395 of 2004 produced as Exhibit P3 in the present writ petition. Such exercise shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition as well as a copy of this judgment before the first respondent for pursuing further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.