IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20704 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. K.G.PRASANNAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN UNNITHAN, B.838-P SECURITY SECTION, TCC LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, R/A.VALSALA MANDIRAM, PANNIVIZHA, ANADAPPALY PO., NEAR VALIYAKULAM, ADOOR 2. MADHAVAN.M., S/O.V.P.AMBU, B.NO.844 -P SECURITY SECTION, TCC.LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL, R/A.MAUVANAL HOUSE, NJARAKKAL PO VERUMPATHY WEST. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P SRI.G.PADMARAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PERSONAL MANAGER, TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMICALS LTD., PB.NO.4004, UDYOGAMANDAL PO., PIN-683 501. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, REP. BY THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN CHEMNICALS LTD.,DO.DO. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC, O/O.KPSC, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. BASHEER.M.B. S/O.BEERAN.M.A., B/NO.839-P, SECURITY SECTION TCC LTD.,MAVALA HOUSE, PRESANNAPURAM CHOWARA PO., ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 20704 of 2008 -2- BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).20704/2008 -------------------- Dated this the13th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 notification published in the Kerala Gazette dated 3.6.1986, the Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as Security Guards in the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Limited. The qualifications prescribed for the post were as follows:- (1). A pass in S.S.L.C, or its equivalent. (2). Physical Standards- (a).Height-163 Cms. (b). Weight-59Kgs. (c).Chest-84 Cms, (normal) 89 Cms. (expanded) (3). Minimum 5 years service in the Defence Forces. 2. The petitioners and the fifth respondent applied. They were selected and appointed after written test and interview. The first petitioner joined duty on 23.2.1989, W.P.(C).20704/2008 2 the second petitioner on 13.10.1990 and the fifth respondent joined duty on 23.5.1989. They were confirmed in service on 23.12.1990, 13.4.1992 and 23.11.1990 respectively. Nearly 17 years after entry in service, the petitioners have raised a contention that the service rendered by the fifth respondent in the Border Security Force, cannot be reckoned as service in the Defence forces. This contention is raised relying on Ext.P4 letter dated 13.11.2007 sent by the State Public Information Officer of the Kerala Public Service Commission to the second petitioner wherein it is stated that service in the Border Security Force is not reckoned as or equivalent to service in defence forces prescribed for the post of Security Guards in the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Limited. On receipt of Ext.P4, the second petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation dated 14.5.2008 before the Personal Manager of Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Limited stating that as the fifth respondent is not qualified to be appointed as Security Guard, he may be promoted as Senior Security Officer. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking the following reliefs:- W.P.(C).20704/2008 3 (i).Call for the records relating to the appointment of petitioners and 5th respondent. (ii).Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to follow the seniority rules in granting promotion and thereby to promote the petitioners to the post of Senior Security Inspector in accordance with their seniority. (iii). Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the appointment of respondent No.5 is illegal and hence he is not entitled for any legal right including promotion in furtherance to such appointment. (iv).Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to cancel the appointment of the respondent No.5 in the post of Security Guard. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a statement as directed by this Court. It is stated therein that the post of senior Security Inspector is being held presently by W.P.(C).20704/2008 4 Sri.Sundarlal, who will retire from service only on 20.6.2010 and therefore the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Security Inspector is premature and untenable. Respondents 2 and 3 have also stated that the fifth respondent who was confirmed in service on 23.11.1990 is senior to the petitioners who were confirmed on 23.12.1990 and 30.4.1992 respectively. Going by the materials on record, I am satisfied that there is no merit in the challenge to the appointment of the fifth respondent as Security Guard or the claim made by the petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Security Inspector. The petitioners and the fifth respondent were appointed during the year 1989. The fifth respondent was confirmed in service in the year 1990. The challenge made by the petitioners to the selection and appointment of the fifth respondent as Security Guard in the Travancore-Cochin Chemicals Limited is highly belated. Even if one were to accept the contention raised by the petitioners that the fifth respondent was not qualified to be appointed, his advice cannot be cancelled at this distance of time even applying Rule 3(c) of Part-II of K.S. & S.S.R, 1958. W.P.(C).20704/2008 5 Therefore, the challenge to the selection and appointment of the fifth respondent as Security Guard made nearly 19 years back cannot be entertained. As regards the claim for appointment to the post of Senior Security Inspector, from the statement filed by respondents 2 and 3 it is clear that the said post is not lying vacant. A vacancy in the said post will arise only on 20.6.2010. In that view of the matter, the petitioners also cannot claim promotion as Senior Security Inspector. It is also evident from the pleadings that the fifth respondent is senior to the petitioners in service. For that reason also, they cannot claim any right over the fifth respondent. Having regard to the facts stated above, I hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs