IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 19196 of 2003(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.SASIDHARAN, SUPERINTENDENT, STATE MUSEUM AND ZOO, THRISSUR. BY MR. K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV.MR.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CULTURAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS AND ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.JAYAN, SUPERINTENDENT, GARDEN SECTION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MUSEUMS AND ZOO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. ANTONY MUKKATH, R3 BY ADV. MR.B.RAGUNATHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.19196/2003-I: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 5396/2003 IN W.P.(C).NO.19196/2003-I DISMISSED 06/11/2009. SD/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL RULES (G.O.MS). NO.386/62/0D DTD. 24/07/1962. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.MS.91/75/H. EDN. DTD. 07/06/1975. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SPECIAL RULES ISSUED IN G.O.(P). NO.9/89/CAD DTD. 01/03/1989. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ME-985/90 DTD. 11/12/1992 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ME-985/90 DTD. 20/09/1993 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.287/98/CAD DTD. 13/08/98 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).NO.190/99/CAD DTD. 29/03/99 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 422/98 DTD. 19/10/2001. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 22/02/2002. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(RT).187/2003/CAD DTD. 23/04/2003 ISSUED BY THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.91/75/H. EDN. DTD. 7/6/1975. W.P.(C). NO.19196/2003-I: EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. R1A (1)31710/85/CW DTD. 24/10/1987. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/10/1997 OF THE KPSC TO THE R.2. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/01/2002 TO THE R.1. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19196 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P10 order dated 23/04/2003 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner was advised for appointment as Curator Gr.II on 30/10/1985. He was appointed on 16/11/1985 and joined service on 20/11/1985 in the Art Museum. The 3rd respondent was also advised and appointed on the same day, and he too joined the post of Curator Gr.II at N.H.Museum on 20/11/1985. Both the appointments were against temporary vacancies. While the petitioner's appointment was regularised with effect from 20/11/1985, the 3rd respondent was thrown out of service on 03/07/1986 for want of vacancies. 3. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent was reappointed on 29/10/1987 on the basis of the letter dated 24/10/1987 of the Public Service Commission. 4. Anticipating earlier promotion to the 3rd respondent, the WP(C) No.19196/2003 -2- petitioner had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.6235/1991 and that was dismissed on the ground that the promotion to the post of Curator Gr.I was unit wise, and as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were working in different units, even if the 3rd respondent was promoted, the petitioner had no grievance. He filed Writ Appeal No.422/1998. During the pendency of the original petition, by Ext.P5 order dated 20/09/1993, both the petitioner and the 3rd respondent were promoted as Curator Gr.I with effect from 11/12/1992. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent was promoted as Superintendent by Ext.P6 order dated 13/08/1998, and the petitioner was also promoted by Ext.P7 order dated 29/03/1999. 5. On account of the aforesaid developments, the writ appeal was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment dated 19/10/2001 permitting the petitioner to move the 1st respondent for settlement on his seniority claim over the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P9 representation. Parties were heard by the 1st respondent, and finally Ext.P10 order dated 23/04/2003 was issued rejecting his claim. It is challenging Ext.P10 this writ petition is filed. WP(C) No.19196/2003 -3- A reading of Ext.P10 shows that the 3rd respondent has been held eligible for earliest effective advice from 30/05/1985 both having been advised and joined service on the same day and as the 3rd respondent is elder in age to the petitioner. If so, the seniority assigned to the 3rd respondent over the petitioner cannot be faulted. This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg