IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27153 of 2004(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.V.KURIAKOSE, THOTTAPPILLIL HOUSE, KEERAMPRAR P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, COLLECTORAE, KUYILIMALA P.O. IDUKKI DIST. 685 603. 3. SAJEEV KRISHNAN, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 4. SOMANKUNJU, VILLAGE ASSISTANT, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. BY SMT.M.R.SRILATHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.04.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.27153 OF 2004 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT:- 1. EXT. P1 :- Photocopy of the Judgment dated 10.8.01 in O.P.No.23480/2001 2. EXT. P2 :- Photocopy of the proceedings No.A2, 6/98 dated 9.4.02 of the second respondent 3. EXT.P3 :- Photocopy of the representation dated 9.5.02 submitted by the petitioner to the second respondent 4. EXT.P4 :- Photocopy of the Judgment dated 4.7.03 in O.P.No.25994 /2002 5. EXT.P5 :- Photocopy of the proceedings No.A2.14290/2003 dated 19.5.2004 passed by the second respondent RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ---------------------- WP(C) No.27153 of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined the service of the Revenue Department of the Government of Kerala as a Villageman on 23.7.1992. On passing the obligatory departmental test, he became eligible for promotion to the cadre of Village Assistant / LDC before 1996. According to the petitioner, in spite of several promotions made after 1996, the petitioner was not considered till 2001. This court in O.P No.23480/2001, filed by the petitioner, directed the respondents to consider the representation filed by this court in that regard. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner's case was considered and the petitioner was given promotion. The petitioner again filed O.P No.25994/2002, claiming promotion with retrospective effect. That original petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation filed by the petitioner in that regard. Pursuant thereto Ext.P9 order has been passed, WP(C) No.27153 of 2004 2 rejecting the claim for retrospective promotion. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5, seeking the following reliefs: " (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to prepare a seniority list of "Villageman" in the district of Idukki as was applicable in 1996/1997 following the rules and regulations with regard to the preparation of the seniority list; (ii) call for the records and details pertaining to the exercise of promotion to the cadre of LDC/V.A in the district of Idukki during 1997-2001 and also the records and details pertaining to the exercise of promotion to the cadre of U.D.C / V.O in the district of Idukki during 1998- 2002; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue fresh proceedings effecting promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of L.D Clerk / V.A with effect from the date on which the petitioner was entitled to be promoted and to give all consequential benefits; (iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to effect promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of U.D.Clerk with effect from the date on which the petitioner became eligible for promotion to that cadre and to give the petitioner all the consequential benefits." A Counter Affidavit has been filed by the second respondent, wherein the second respondent seeks to controvert the contentions of the petitioner. According to the second respondent, no junior of the petitioner has ever WP(C) No.27153 of 2004 3 been promoted ahead of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no claim for retrospective promotion is the contention. 2. I have considered rival contentions in detail. 3. In a writ petition seeking certain reliefs, it is for the petitioner to prima facie make out a case. The petitioner's claim is for retrospective promotion. For that the petitioner has to show prima facie that somebody junior to him has been promoted ahead of him or at least that a vacancy for promotion arose on the anterior date. Although the petitioner has impleaded respondents 3 and 4, he has not chosen to include any prayer for promotion ahead of them. He also does not give details of their dates of entry into service to show that they are Juniors to the petitioner. As such there is no prima facie case made out by the petitioner to show that any of the juniors of the petitioner has been promoted ahead of the petitioner. Without such prima facie case, I cannot consider the claim of the WP(C) No.27153 of 2004 4 petitioner for retrospective promotion. The petitioner's contention is that he does not know as to whether any person junior to him has been promoted, without a seniority list of Villageman published. Therefore he filed I.A.No.1772/2008 for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to produce records / documents maintained in the office of the respondents 1 and 2 with respect to the number of vacancies of LDC/VAs that arose during 1.1.1997 to 31.12.2001 and the names and other service details of Villagemen who were promoted to those vacancies as well as all records / documents pertaining to the exercise of promotion to the cadre of UDC/VO in the district of Idukki during 1998-2002, before this court. 4. In short, the petitioner wants the respondents to make out a case for him, which I do not think I can permit. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner for retrospective promotion. However, I find merit in the first prayer of the petitioner WP(C) No.27153 of 2004 5 for directing the second respondent to publish a seniority list of Villagemen in the district of Idukki as applicable for the period 1996-1997. In the Counter Affidavit, there is not mentioned that a seniority list was in fact published. I am of opinion that the respondents 1 and 2 were duty bound to publish a seniority list. In the above circumstances, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to see that a seniority list of Villagemen are published after complying with the procedure and formalities prescribed for the relevant period. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner finds from the seniority list that any person Junior to him has been promoted ahead of him, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies. This writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE DMB