IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1487 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.12168/2007 Dated 11/04/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER,RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE,CHENNAI. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ K.KASILINGAM,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O SRI.KALIPPAN,ASIPF,RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, ERODE,PALAKKAD DIVISION,SOUTHERN RAILWAY. ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1487 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. Heard Senior Counsel Smt.Sumathy Dandapani appearing for the appellant and the counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. After hearing both sides and after going through the judgment, what we notice is that the respondent was declined promotion from the select list only because of cancellation of the select list prepared by the appellants, in which the respondent's name was very much there. Cancellation of the select list was challenged in this Court and the same was allowed by the learned Single Judge and confirmed by the Division Bench. The appellants have also accepted the judgment of the Division Bench, whereunder cancellation of select list by the appellants stands cancelled and the select list, in which the respondent got included is restored. All what the learned Single Judge held is that the appellants cannot take advantage of their own mistake, i.e., cancellation of the select list, in which the respondent got WA.1348/11 2 included on merit. So much so, in principle, we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility of the respondent for promotion with effect from the date on which he would have got promotion had the select list not been cancelled by the appellants, which was found illegal by this Court. 3. On our specific query to the counsel for the respondent as to whether the promotees from 60% were appointed as on the date on which the respondent is granted retrospectivity for promotion by the learned Single Judge, i.e., 15.11.2011, the counsel submitted that according to his information, promotions were given based on seniority under the 60% quota reserved for . them only in 2003. If that be so, we do not know on what basis the respondent can claim retrospectivity for his promotion with effect from 15.11.2011, because as on that date, nobody was promoted to the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector of Railway Protection Force. When appointment is from two streams on a particular ratio, which in this case is 60:40 based on seniority and selection, the appointments have to be simultaneously made by filling up every brock of 10 posts with 6 from promotees and 4 from select list. So much so, the respondent's claim arises only when appointments were made filling up the post of Assistant Sub WA.1348/11 3 Inspectors from both the streams, which should have been done simultaneously. So much so, we hold that the date on which retrospectivity has to be granted to the respondent in the promoted post is the date on which he would have got appointment had the list not been cancelled and appointment made in accordance with the norms, i.e., in the ratio provided under the rules. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal partly by declaring the above position with direction to the appellant as date of retrospectivity as stated above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs