IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004(S) -------------------------- OA.751/2001 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. MANI.C. PILLAI D/O. LATE CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 34 YEARS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI, RESIDING AT SREEVASAM, SAMRUDHY NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24 2. MADHU RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. LATE K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 32 YEARS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, IBNTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI, RESIDING AT RAMANJALI, NANDIATTUKUNAM, NORTH PARAVUR BY ADV. SRI.R.SREERAJ SRI.S.D.ASOKAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.ANIL R. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. C.MURALEEDHARAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI-16 2. C.VILASINI, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI-16 (......................2) -: 2 :- 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI. 4. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED FISHERIES PROJECT, KOCHI-16 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004(S) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:- P1: Copy of the Final Order dtd.18.4.2001 in OA.366/98 on the file of the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. P2: Copy of the Order No.A3/OA/366/98 dated 17.7.2001 issued by the 4th respondent. P3: Copy of OA.751/2001 on the file of the Honourable Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench (without its Annexures) dated 13.8.2001. P4: Copy of the Reply Statement filed by the respondents 1 & 2 in OA.751/2001 dated 22/12/2001. P5: Copy of the Reply Statement filed by the respondents 3 & 4 in OA.751/2001 dated 7.1.2001. P6: Copy of the Rejoinder filed by the applicants in OA.751/2001 to the Ext.P5 reply statement dtd.22.6.2002. P7: Copy of the Final Order dated 15.1.2004 in OA.751/2001 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. P8: Copy of the order No.A1/1-9/96 Vol.II dated 21.4.2004 issued by the 4th respondent. P9: Copy of the order No.A3/OA/751/2001 dated 27.4.2004 issued by the 4th respondent. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- Nil. ( true copy ) PA to Judge. kvs/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ========================= WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. ========================= Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008. C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J. J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petition and the counsel for the contesting respondents. The order under challenge is Ext.P7 issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an application filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein challenging the seniority list of Upper Division Clerks in the Integrated Fisheries Project which is a department under the Government of India. The first respondent herein along with one Mr.M.R.Mohanan Nair challenged the seniority of another person over them which led to Ext.P1 order of the CAT in OA.No.366/1998. It is seen from the said order of the Tribunal that it has only directed refixation of seniority based on the recruitment rules which provided for appointment of Upper Division Clerks through promotion from Lower Division Clerks WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 2 on the basis of seniority as well as test qualification. Out of every three posts two have to be filled up under the rules on seniority basis and one who passes the test. The problem on fixation of seniority cropped up because of appointment of one Mr.S.D.Raju as a U.D.Clerk on transfer from Agriculture Ministry to the Integrated Fisheries Project. Even though the said Mr.Raju was appointed from out side the department by transfer on 7.11.1991, no one questioned it. In the first seniority list of L.D.Clerks Mr.Raju's appointment was treated as one under the test quota. However, when seniority was refixed based on Ext.P1 order of the CAT, the department shifted Mr.Raju from test quota to seniority quota. The seniority list is produced as Ext.P2 which was challenged in the OA filed by respondents 1 and 2 which led to Ext.P1 order of the CAT. It is against this order the petitioners have filed this Original Petition. The consequential order issued pursuant to Ext.P7 is produced as Ext.P9. We find that Mr.Raju who was appointed as U.D.Clerk on 7.11.1991 though retained in the seniority list of U.D.Clerks with effect from the date of his appointment is neither treated as an appointee from the seniority quota or from the test quota. In other words, he is given an independent status and the appointment WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 3 in accordance with the recruitment rules to the U.D.Clerk post was made after taking into account the remaining vacancies in the same ratio. Both sides have no dispute on this issue also. The question therefore to be considered is whether the Tribunal's order declaring Mr.Raju as not belonging to any quota but is entitled to independent status is right or wrong. We feel the Tribunal's order is quite reasonable and equitable because by operation of the Tribunal's order one post is taken out of the available vacancies and assigned to a person who was appointed by the department on transfer from another State probably on his request. So long as Mr.Raju is entitled to continue in service in the same department which is not contested by the respondents, he is entitled the seniority with effect from the date of his appointment. This is the only consequence which is achieved by the Tribunal's order. Obviously the petitioners' request to treat Mr.Raju as appointed from the seniority quota is not tenable for the reason that he never served as L.D.Clerk in the Integrated Fisheries Project and his seniority cannot be compared to others in service. Similar is the position so far as test quota is concerned because he has not worked as an L.D.Clerk in the Integrated Fisheries Project nor has passed any WP(C).No. 10400 of 2004-S. 4 test. In the circumstances we find in Ext.P9 seniority list which is admittedly in accordance with recruitment rules Mr.Raju's position is retained by the Tribunal. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-