IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29019 of 2011(B) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. BABU SEBASTIAN, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL.B., CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALLAPPILLY POLICE STATION, MALLAPILLY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. V.G.ARUN MR. T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, KERALA, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. E. M. ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29477 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c) 29019 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1 COPY OF THE SELECT LIST OF CIRCLE INSPECTORS FOR THE YEAR 2010 PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE DATED 8.3.2011. EXT.P2 COPY OF ORDER DGO NO.940/2011 DATED 28.07.2011 PERTAINING TO THE PROMOTION OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P3 COPY OF ORDER DGO NO.740/2011 DATED 01.07.2011. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE DGO NO.1566 OF 2011 DATED 29.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) Nos. 29019 & 29477 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 4th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners in both these cases are challenging the reversion from the post of Circle Inspectors. For the purpose of convenience of reference, the documents and the parties are referred to as given in W.P.(C) No. 29477 of 2011, 2. The challenge is mainly based on the fact that the petitioners were given promotion, pursuant to the process of selection conducted by the duly constituted DPC, when the petitioners alone came within the zone of consideration. It was after ascertaining the merits and contentions of the petitioners, that they were found fit to be promoted and were promoted accordingly. As given in the impugned order of reversion, it is stated that, some other persons, who are stated as the seniors of the petitioners came to be considered in a subsequent 'adhoc DPC' and by virtue of this, they happened to be placed above the petitioners which necessitated the reversion. Such a procedure, according to the petitioners is alien to the Scheme of the Statute, particularly Rule 28 (b) (iA) of Part II KS and SSR. W.P. (C) Nos. 29019 & 29477 of 2011 : 2 : 3. Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 29477 of 2011 and Sri. V.G. Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 29019 of 2011 argued the matter at length, referring to the rule position as above. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 5. Going by the contents of the impugned order, it is very much evident that the persons who are sought to be included by virtue of the subsequent 'adhoc DPC' are admittedly the seniors. The submission made by the learned senior counsel, referring to Rule 28 b (iA), is that the persons who are subsequently cleared cannot placed a bar in the way of the promotion already given to the petitioners. The said Rule reads as follows: (iA) Preparation of select list subsequent to the occurrence of vacancy :- When a select list is prepared subsequent to the occurrence of a vacancy, no person who was not qualified for inclusion in the select list at the time of occurrence of the vacancy shall be included in the select list for appointment against that vacancy. Note : - If there are no qualified persons for promotion to a post on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, the person who gets qualified first thereafter, shall be considered for promotion to that post. W.P. (C) Nos. 29019 & 29477 of 2011 : 3 : provided that where the Special Rules in respect of the post provide that direct recruitment shall be resorted to in the absence if qualified candidates for promotion on the date of occurrence of the vacancy, recruitment to the post shall be made accordingly. Obviously, the Rule says that when a select list is prepared subsequent to the occurrence of a vacancy, no persons who are not included in the select list at the time of occurrence of the vacancy shall be included in the selection for appointment against that vacancy. The point to be considered is, whether the persons who are subsequently brought into the field by virtue of 'adhoc DPC', were the persons who were originally qualified for inclusion in the select list or not. 6. Going by the contents of the impugned order, it is seen that the persons so considered and fixed in situ, as per the 'adhoc DPC', were in fact pursuing their cause, contending that, they ought to have been considered in respect of the vacancies in question by the concerned DPC. Since they were sidelined, they approached this Court by filing W.P(C) 16212 of 2011, which culminated in the judgment dated 16.06.2011. It was pursuant to the above verdict, that the said eligible persons were also considered by convening an 'adhoc DPC' and the list was revised accordingly. By virtue of the power vested with W.P. (C) Nos. 29019 & 29477 of 2011 : 4 : the authority to revise the list, as provided under Rule 28 b (i) (8a), the revision of the said list is well within the four walls of the law, which is not liable to be assailed under any circumstances. 7. Coming to the point raised by the learned counsel with reference to the mandate of sub Rule 9 of 28 (b) (i) and also with reference to Rule 29, it is to be noted that, the promotion orders given to the petitioners (referred to as items 1 to 3 in Ext.P4) themselves contained as stipulation that the promotion ordered in favour of the petitioners was subject to the condition that the junior most will be reverted for want of vacancies in future, due to any contingencies (as observed/incorporated in Ext. P4). The petitioners accepted the promotion and continued in the post accordingly. Subsequently, when judgment in W.P(C) 16212 of 2011 was given effect to, convening 'adhoc DPC' and the persons by name Sri.K.M. Prasad, Pushparaj V, Surendran M., Mohanan P.D. and Martin C.J. were included at the appropriate place above the petitioners, as a natural consequence, since there was no other vacancy, reversion of the petitioners became inevitable and it has been ordered accordingly vide Ext. P4. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the action pursued by the concerned respondents is well within the statutory W.P. (C) Nos. 29019 & 29477 of 2011 : 5 : prescription and based on the actual facts and figures. No interference is called for. Both the Writ Petitions fail and they are dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge