IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 31386 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.SEBASTIAN, JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. H.MOHAMMED MUBARAQUE, JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 3. K.D.JAYASREE, JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOLLAM. 4. R.MANIAMMA, JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KOLLAM. 5. SAJU ABRAHAM, JUNIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD, VANCHIYOOR P.O., TRIVANDRUM-35, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. I.K.AJITH KUMAR, SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES OFFICE, KANNUR. 3. SAKKIR AHAMMED BHUTTO, SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT: 4. SMT.K.PUSHPAMMA, SR. CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, KERALA KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.` 7.3.06 IN I.A.NO.3214/06) ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI FOR R2,3 SRI.GEORGE T. THACHETT FOR R3 SMT.SABINA JAYAN FOR R3 SRI.V.V.JOSHI, SC, KHADI BOARD FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5/12/2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 31386/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DTD.8.1.99. P2. COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST AS ON 1.5.01. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.23.5.05 BY R1. P4. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.6.6.05 BY P1 TO R1. P5. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.9.8.05 BY R1. P6. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.16.8.05 BY P1. P7. COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF METHOD OF APPOINTMENT OF VARIOUS POSTS. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.10.99 BY R1. P9. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.7.8.98 BY R1. P10. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.10.7.06 BY R1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1A. COPY OF THE CIRCULAR CALLING OBJECTION TO THE SENIORITY LIST. R1B COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF R3. R2A. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.13.10.99 OF R1. R2B COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DTD.3.4.02. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.31386 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are directly recruited Junior Co-operative Inspectors working in the Khadi and Village Industries Board. The petitioners 1 and 3 to 5 were advised on 6.6.1996 and the 2nd petitioner was advised on 5.5.1997. As per the recruitment rules applicable, 60% of the vacancies of Junior Co-operative Inspectors are to be filed up by direct recruits and 40% by promotion. Respondents 2 to 4 are promotees. The 1st respondent published a seniority list of Junior Co-operative Inspectors on 7.8.1998, viz., Ext.P9, in which respondents 2 and 4 were assigned seniority below the petitioners. Later, Ext.P2 draft seniority list was published on 3.4.2002, in which also respondents 2 and 4 were shown below the petitioners. Despite the said seniority position, respondents 2 to 3 were promoted to the post of Senior Co-operative Inspectors by Exts.P3 and P8 orders in preference to the petitioners, which are under challenge in this original petition (The petitioners challenge Ext.P5 order promoting the 3rd respondent also. However, since in the w.p.c.31386/05 2 seniority list, the 3rd respondent is senior to the petitioners, the petitioners are not pressing their challenge against the promotion of the 3rd respondent by Ext.P5). 2. The contention of the respondents in this matter is that by Ext.R2A dated 13.10.1999, respondents 2 to 4 were promoted with retrospective effect from 1.3.1996, 7.5.1996 and 31.5.1996 which dates are prior to the advice of the petitioners and therefore, respondents 2 to 4 are senior to the petitioners. According to respondents 2 and 4, the promotions given to respondents 2 and 4 are also correct in law. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. I have gone through Ext.R2-A order, which does not give any reason as to why respondents 2 to 4 should be given an anterior date of promotion. Of course the counsel for the 1st respondent would argue that it is because of the date of occurrence of vacancy to which they were promoted as Junior Co- operative Inspectors. But that also is not evident from Ext.R2A. Even otherwise Ext.R2-A has not been made known to anyone other than the concerned individuals covered by Ext.R2-A. Even apart from that, even after issue of Ext.R2-A order dated w.p.c.31386/05 3 13.10.1999, in Ext.P2 seniority list dated 3.4.2002, the petitioners have been shown as seniors to respondents 2 and 4. Admittedly there is no other seniority list, draft or otherwise, which would show that respondents 2 and 4 were given seniority above the petitioners. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that the promotion given to respondents 2 and 4 has been effected in accordance with law. Accordingly, Exts.P3 and P8 are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the entire matter including the validity of Ext.R2-A retrospective promotion order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.31386/05 4